Bello v. United States

District Court, E.D. Texas

Bello v. United States

Trial Court Opinion

United States District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

OLAMIDE OLATAYO BELLO, § #65100510 § § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:25-cv-889 VS. § CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 4:23-cr-136(1) § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Came on for consideration the report of the United States Magistrate Judge in this action, this matter having been heretofore referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636

. On August 25, 2025, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (Dkt. #11) that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2255

be dismissed without prejudice as premature because his direct criminal appeal remains pending. Movant filed Objections (Dkt. #12) to the Report. In the Objections, Movant acknowledges that his direct appeal remains pending before the Fifth Circuit. Nonetheless, he insists, without any legal authority, that the Court consider his § 2255 motion. As the Magistrate Judge correctly explained, because Movant’s appeal remains pending before the Fifth Circuit, his conviction and sentence are not final, and therefore he may not bring a collateral attack. See United States v. Clark,

816 F.3d 350, 362

(5th Cir. 2016) (“It is a jurisdictional requirement of § 2255 that the conviction and sentence being challenged are final.”). Movant may file a proper § 2255 motion, if necessary, once the appeal is final. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the Objections and is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the Objections are without merit as to the ultimate findings of the Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Objections (Dkt. #12) are OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge’s Report is ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is therefore ORDERED that the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence is DISMISSED without prejudice as premature. It is further ORDERED that a certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reference

Status
Unknown