United States v. Bamidele Oludayo Omotosho

USCA11 Case: 24-12317 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 1 of 3

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-12317 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus BAMIDELE OLUDAYO OMOTOSHO, a.k.a. Tesho, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:22-cr-00339-WFJ-CPT-1 ____________________ ____________________ No. 24-12320 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, USCA11 Case: 24-12317 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 24-12317 versus BAMIDELE OLUDAYO OMOTOSHO, a.k.a. barrelman, a.k.a. thomasspencer, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cr-00313-WFJ-AEP-2 ____________________ Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, and ROSENBAUM and GRANT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Patricia Jean Kyle, appointed counsel for Bamidele Omo- tosho in these direct criminal appeals, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

On April 14, 2025, we received a letter from Omotosho, in which he stated that he had “not received any communication from Ms. Kyle,” and requested that we “consider appointing sub- stitute counsel who w[ould] actively communicate with [him].”

We construed that letter as a motion for substitution of counsel.

On June 6, 2025, Omotosho sent a second letter, in which he clari- fied that he was “not seeking new counsel” and stated that he had USCA11 Case: 24-12317 Document: 52-1 Date Filed: 03/25/2026 Page: 3 of 3

24-12317 Opinion of the Court 3 “yet to receive any updates from th[is] Court or [his] appointed at- torney.” In the light of his June 6 letter, Omotosho’s construed mo- tion for substitution of counsel is DENIED AS MOOT.

On September 5, 2025, we issued an order notifying Omo- tosho that his attorney had moved to withdraw and that we were holding that motion in abeyance based on the record of difficulties regarding his receipt of documents from this Court and from coun- sel. We ordered Omotosho to notify us of his current address within 30 days. To ensure notice, we directed the Clerk to serve a copy of the order on him at six physical addresses—including the return address he provided in his earlier correspondence—as well as through our electronic filing system. Each mailing included Omotosho’s register number assigned by the Bureau of Prisons. Af- ter the Clerk served the order, Omotosho failed to respond.

We have conducted an independent review of the entire rec- ord. Our review confirms that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because our examination reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Omotosho’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.