Background
A jury convicted Olamide Olatayo Bello of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. The district court sentenced him to 293 months’ imprisonment and ordered restitution, initially leaving the restitution amount undetermined for 90 days. Within that period, the government moved to amend the judgment to include $3,567,903 in restitution, which the district court granted.
Bello appealed, raising three distinct issues: a post-judgment motion “for relief based on perjury and newly discovered evidence”; a motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 10(c) to settle the record due to an unavailable sentencing transcript; and a motion to reopen the time to file a notice of appeal of the amended judgment. The Fifth Circuit addressed the jurisdictional and procedural posture of each.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review Bello’s post-judgment motion because it was procedurally improper and not recognized by any rule or statute. The court emphasized that a § 2255 petition is “the only available avenue to attack the original conviction,” not a direct appeal based on unexamined post-conviction motions.
The appeal regarding the unavailable sentencing transcript became moot when the district court clerk mailed Bello a copy on June 1, 2026. Since the transcript was then part of the record, the relief sought was no longer necessary.
Bello’s motion to reopen the deadline for filing notice of appeal required consolidation with his appeal of the amended judgment (No. 25-40772). Though Bello filed his notice on November 26, 2025—more than 14 days after the amended judgment’s entry on October 28, 2025—this fell within the additional 30-day period permitted by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4). The panel hearing the amended judgment appeal must determine whether Bello can demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for the late filing.
Key Takeaways
- Procedurally improper motions—those not recognized by rule or statute—cannot be appealed and deprive courts of jurisdiction.
- § 2255 petitions, not direct appeals, are the proper vehicle for attacking the validity of underlying convictions.
- Appeals become moot when the relief sought is rendered unnecessary by intervening events, such as production of a missing transcript.
- Late notice of appeal filings may be saved by showing excusable neglect or good cause within the extended 30-day window under Rule 4(b)(4).
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces strict adherence to criminal appellate procedure. Defendants must follow proper channels—including using § 2255 petitions rather than improvised post-judgment motions—to preserve appellate rights. Trial courts and appellate panels lack authority to review claims presented through procedurally improper mechanisms, and such defects cannot be cured on appeal simply by filing a notice of appeal. The ruling illustrates the Fifth Circuit’s gatekeeping function: jurisdictional and procedural defects are not waivable.
For practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of timely notice of appeal filings and the limited circumstances under which courts may extend filing deadlines. Defendants must act within 14 days of judgment or demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause within an additional 30-day window; passive reliance on post-judgment motions will not preserve appellate rights.