United States v. Bello

── United States v. Bello ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Date: April 28, 2026 Category: Non Direct Criminal Case: 25-40725 Document: 156-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ____________ FILED April 28, 2026 No. 25-40725 Lyle W. Cayce Summary Calendar Clerk ____________ United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Olamide Olatayo Bello, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:23-CR-136-1 ______________________________ Before Jones, Richman, and Douglas, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam: * Olamide Olatayo Bello, federal prisoner # 65100-150, appeals from the (i) the district court’s preliminary order of forfeiture (dkt. entry 726); (ii) Bello’s motion for a new trial (dkt. entry 736); (iii) Bello’s motion for order of designation of record on appeal (dkt. entry 741); (iv) the district court’s final order of forfeiture (dkt. entry 806); (v) the district court’s order _____________________ * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-40725 Document: 156-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2026 No. 25-40725 denying Bello’s motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Subpart 1 of Part B of Amendment 821 to the Guidelines (dkt. entry 807); and (vi) the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to dismiss the original indictment (dkt. entry 724). The Government has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and for summary affirmance or, alternatively, for an extension of time to file an appellee brief. As a preliminary matter, we note that, on or about March 2, 2026, Bello filed a notice in this court where he makes clear that he is maintaining an appeal only as to the final order of forfeiture, ((iv), above), and the order denying his motion for a sentence reduction, ((v), above). As such, he has explicitly abandoned his appeal of (i), (ii), (iii), and (vi), above. As to the final order of forfeiture, the Government moves for dismissal of Bello’s appeal of the order, correctly contending that Bello lacks standing to challenge the order because, whereas a preliminary order of forfeiture is a final judgment as to the rights of a defendant to forfeited property, a final order of forfeiture determines the rights of third parties with respect to property a defendant has forfeited. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A); United States v. De Los Santos, 260 F.3d 446, 448 (5th Cir. 2001). Here, Bello’s interest in the property that was forfeited was resolved by the district court’s preliminary order of forfeiture, which became final as to Bello at his July 24, 2025 sentencing. See FED. R. CRIM. P. 32.2(b)(4)(A); De Los Santos, 260 F.3d at 448. Consequently, Bello no longer had any interest in the forfeited property when the district court entered the final order of forfeiture. Because the final order of forfeiture did not implicate Bello’s rights to the forfeited propert