Background
Olamide Olatayo Bello was convicted by jury of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 1343, and conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h) and 1957. The district court for the Eastern District of Texas sentenced him to 293 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. At sentencing, the court ordered restitution but deferred determination of the amount for 90 days.
Bello’s initial appeal was dismissed for failure to prosecute. When the district court later issued an amended judgment imposing $3,567,903 in restitution on October 28, 2025, Bello filed his notice of appeal on November 26, 2025—29 days later. Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(1)(A)(i) requires that a defendant’s notice of appeal must be filed within 14 days after entry of the judgment being appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth Circuit dismissed Bello’s appeal from the amended judgment as untimely filed. Because Bello filed his notice of appeal 29 days after the amended judgment, rather than within the required 14-day window, the appeal was beyond the appellate court’s jurisdiction to hear on the merits.
However, the court recognized that Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 4(b)(4) permits district courts to extend the filing deadline upon a finding of “excusable neglect or good cause.” The court noted that it has previously required district courts to articulate specific findings on this issue. Because the district court had summarily denied Bello’s motion to accept the late notice of appeal without making any findings, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case for the district court to determine whether excusable neglect or good cause justified extending Bello’s time to appeal.
Key Takeaways
- The 14-day filing deadline for notices of appeal in criminal cases is jurisdictional and must be strictly observed.
- District courts may extend the filing deadline under Rule 4(b)(4) but must affirmatively find “excusable neglect or good cause” with articulated reasoning.
- Summary denial of a motion to extend the appeal deadline without findings violates the required procedural standard and warrants remand.
- Appellate courts retain jurisdiction to remand criminal appeals for limited purposes, such as evaluating whether to permit late appeals.
Why It Matters
This decision reaffirms critical procedural protections for criminal defendants in the Fifth Circuit. While strict adherence to filing deadlines is essential for appellate jurisdiction, the court ensures that district courts cannot summarily reject late appeals without considering whether extraordinary circumstances—such as excusable neglect or good cause—warrant relief. This holds district courts accountable to the procedural standards established in the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
For criminal practitioners, the decision underscores the importance of timely notice of appeal while preserving the possibility of relief from time-bar rules. However, it also signals that conclusory denials of extension motions invite reversal and remand, requiring district courts to engage in meaningful factual and legal analysis when addressing late-filed appeals.