Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 25, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

United States v. Bamidele Oludayo Omotosho

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 24-12320
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Nature of Suit: CON

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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.