Cases

This opinion is subject to revision before publication. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ARMED FORCES _______________ UNITED STATES Appellee v. Andrew P. WITT, Senior Airman United States Air Force, Appellant No. 22-0090 Crim. App. No. 36785 Argued December 6, 2022—Decided June 5, 2023 Military Judge: Mark A. Bridges

Judge STUCKY delivered the opinion of the Court. Sitting en banc, the United States Ah* Force Court of Criminal Appeals (CCA) set aside Appellant’s death sentence. At the Government’s request, the CCA reconsidered, again sitting en banc, and affirmed the death sentence. The case is before us for mandatory review pursuant to Article 67(a)(1), Uniform Code of Mi

CCA 36785. Appellant’s motion to extend time to file a brief granted to March 25, 2015.

CCA 36785. Appellant’s second motion to extend time to file a brief is hereby granted to April 24, 2015.

CCA 36785. On consideration of Appellant’s third motion for an extension of time to file a brief, it is ordered that said motion is hereby granted to July 1, 2015, and absent extraordinary circumstances, no further extension of time will be granted.

CCA 36785. On consideration of Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review, motion to submit document, and second motion to submit document, it is ordered that Appellee’s motion to submit document is hereby denied, that Appellee’s second motion to submit document is hereby granted, and that Appellee’s motion to dismiss the petition for grant of review is hereby granted without prejudice.

OPINION OF THE COURT SARAGOSA, Judge: The appellant was tried by a general court-martial composed of twelve officers, between April and October 2005. He was found guilty of the premeditated murders of Senior Airman (SrA) AS and his wife JS, as well as the attempted premeditated murder of (then) SrA JK, in violation of Articles 118 and 80, UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. §§ 918, 880, respectively. On 13 October 2005, the

CCA 36785. Notice is hereby given that a- case requiring mandatory review of the decision of the United States Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals in which the affirmed sentence extends to death was filed under Rule 23 on this 24th day of December, 2014.* Appellant will file a brief under Rule 23(b), not to exceed 250 pages, no later than sixty days after the date of this notice. Appellee will file a brief, n

SARAGOSA, Judge, with whom PELOQUIN, Judge, joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur with the majority of the Court in all respects regarding findings, post-trial processing, instructions, and the variety of additional systemic issues. I write separately in dissent from the majority’s opinion finding that the appellant failed to demonstrate ineffective assis

USCA11 Case: 21-10557 Date Filed: 08/09/2022 Page: 1 of 17 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10557 ____________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus DANYEL MICHELLE WITT,

*608OPINION OF THE COURT RABY, Senior Judge: Pursuant to his negotiated plea of guilty, appellant was convicted of wrongful distribution of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD). He received a sentence of a dishonorable discharge, confinement for four years, forfeitures of all pay and allowances, and reduction to the grade of Private E-l. The convening aut

On consideration of Petitioners’ motion to submit document, it is ordered that said motion is hereby denied.

738 F.2d 419 U.S.v.Witt 83-1182, 83-1185, 83-1199, 83-1200, 83-1201, 83-1202 United States Court of Appeals,Second Circuit. 5/9/84 1 S.D.N.Y. AFFIRMED

On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of an emergency stay, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition was filed under Rule 27(a) on October 6, 2011, and placed on the docket this date.

On consideration of the petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of prohibition, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

Notice is hereby given that a petition for extraordinary relief in the nature of an emergency stay was filed under Rule 27(a) on October 6, 2011, and placed on the docket this date.

542 F.Supp. 696 (1982) UNITED STATES of America v. Herman WITT, et al., Defendants. No. 82 Cr. 33-CSH. United States District Court, S. D. New York. June 23, 1982. *697 John S. Martin, Jr., U. S. Atty. for the S. D. N. Y., New York City, for the U. S.; Denise L. Cote, Stuart Abrams, Asst. U. S. Attys., New York City, of counsel.<

697 F.2d 301 U. S.v.Witt 82-1274 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Second Circuit 8/10/82 S.D.N.Y., 542 F.Supp. 696 1 AFFIRMED*

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.