ORDER

ROY B. DALTON, Jr., District Judge.

This cause is before the Court on the following:

OVERVIEW

On April 30, 2014, the grand jury returned a thirty-count indictment against Defendant Joseph Witchard ("Indictment"). (Docs. 1, 90.) The Court denied Defendant's pro se motions to dismiss the Indictment (Docs. 24, 26, 44, 60, 72, 75)1, and the matter was tried before a jury (Docs. 86-89, 126-28, 135). On November 10, 2014, the jury returned a verdict finding Defendant guilty on all counts (Doc. 96), and Defendant filed a motion for a new trial (Doc. 99). The Court denied the motion for new trial (Doc. 105) and sentenced Defendant to a term of imprisonment (Docs. 106, 109, 111, 119). Defendant then filed a timely notice of appeal. (Doc. 113.)

While his appeal was pending, Defendant filed a pro se "Complaint" ("Complaint") requesting that the Court: (1) "revisit its previous erroneous ruling" denying Defendants' requests to dismiss the Indictment; and (2) pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401, sanction U.S. Secret Service Agent Jeff Seeger and Assistant U.S. Attorney LaKesia R. Mosley for their purported "disobedience" of a Wirt of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum (Doc. 139-2). (See Doc. 139, pp. 1-3 (incorporating by reference pages 20 through 28 of Defendant's appellate brief).) Subsequently, Defendant requested that the Court also sanction "presently-appointed appellate counsel Michelle P. Smith" for intentionally rendering ineffective assistance to Defendant on appeal ("Supplemental Complaint"). (Doc. 141 (arguing that, on appeal, Ms. Smith "intentionally" failed to cite allegedly pertinent case law).) Finally, on March 25, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence ("Appellate Decision"). (Doc. 144.) In particular, the Eleventh Circuit: rejected Defendant's arguments that his due process and speedy trial rights were violated due to prosecution delay and found that the Court did not err in refusing to dismiss the Indictment. (Id. at 3-6).

Upon review, the Court finds that the Defendant's Initial and Supplemental Complaints are without merit and are due to be denied because: (1) Defendant filed both documents when this Court was divested of jurisdiction due to Defendant's appeal; (2) Defendant provided no grounds for reconsideration of the Court's prior Orders; rather, he again cites to cases concerning improper civil detentions by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, which the Court previously rejected as having "no bearing on the propriety or timing of the prosecution in this action" (see Doc. 58, pp. 3-4; see also Doc. 139-41); (3) Defendant's arguments concerning ineffective assistance of appellate counsel are properly raised in motion brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255; and (4) the Appellate Decision rejects the arguments raised by Defendant in his Initial and Supplemental Complaint (see Doc. 144, pp. 3-6).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

DONE AND ORDERED.