Background
Olamide Olatayo Bello, a federal prisoner, appealed multiple district court orders including a preliminary forfeiture order, a motion for a new trial, and an order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under Section eighteen U.S.C. thirty-five eighty-two subsection C two. Bello later clarified he was only appealing the final forfeiture order and the sentence reduction denial, abandoning other issues. The Government moved to dismiss the forfeiture appeal for lack of jurisdiction and sought summary affirmance of the sentence reduction denial.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Bello lacked standing to appeal the final forfeiture order because his interest in the property was resolved by the preliminary order of forfeiture, which became final at his sentencing. Regarding the sentence reduction, the court found that Bello was sentenced on July twenty-four, two thousand and twenty-five, well after Part B of Amendment eighty-two-one took effect on November first, two thousand and twenty-three. Consequently, the plain language of the statute precluded him from being eligible for a reduction based on that amendment.
What it means going forward
The ruling clarifies that a defendant cannot appeal a final forfeiture order after their interest is resolved by a preliminary order. It also reinforces that defendants sentenced after a guideline amendment’s effective date cannot seek reductions under Section eighteen U.S.C. thirty-five eighty-two subsection C two based on that amendment.