USA v. Jeffrey Alan Nursey

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 16-10432
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:15-cr-00112-CDL-SRW-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JEFFREY ALAN NURSEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
No. 16-10466
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00027-CDL-WC-2
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
Case: 16-10432 Date Filed: 08/24/2017 Page: 1 of 3

-- 1 of 3 --

2
versus
JEFFREY ALAN NURSEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
________________________
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
________________________
(August 24, 2017)
Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and MORENO,∗ District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Jeffrey Alan Nursey appeals his conviction for
retaliating against a witness who provided to law enforcement truthful information
relating to the commission of a federal crime, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1513(e).
He also appeals the district court’s revocation of his probation for a prior
conviction due to the commission of the instant retaliation offense.1
Nursey makes three arguments on appeal regarding his retaliation
conviction. First, Nursey argues that the statute under which he was convicted, 18
∗ Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
1 We granted Nursey’s motion to consolidate his two appeals. In case number 16-10432, Nursey
appeals his §1513(e) conviction. And in case number 16-10466, Nursey appeals his probation
revocation.
Case: 16-10432 Date Filed: 08/24/2017 Page: 2 of 3

-- 2 of 3 --

3
U.S.C. § 1513(e), is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because the statute fails
to notify citizens and law enforcement of what constitutes conduct that
“interfere[s] with” the witness’s employment or livelihood or otherwise “harm[s]”
the witness. Second, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove either
that the witness here, Michael Passinaeu, suffered any harm to his employment,
personal life, or otherwise, or that the information Passinaeu provided to law
enforcement was truthful. Third, Nursey argues that the district court erred in
charging the jury only with the pattern beyond-a-reasonable-doubt instruction
without also providing his requested instruction—telling jurors that they cannot
convict on mere “speculation” of guilt.2
But after a careful consideration of both the record and the parties’ briefs,
and having had the benefit of oral argument, we find no reversible error as to any
of these issues. Therefore, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
2 Finally, provided we do not reverse Nursey’s retaliation conviction, Nursey’s attorney argues
that the probation revocation appeal appears to be meritless, citing Anders v. California, 386
U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967).
Case: 16-10432 Date Filed: 08/24/2017 Page: 3 of 3

-- 3 of 3 --