USA v. Jeffrey Alan Nursey, No. 16-10432 (11th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 16-10432 Date Filed: 08/24/2017 Page: 1 of 3 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 16-10432 ________________________ D.C. Docket No.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: 2 of 3 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. 2 Case: 16-10432 Date Filed: 08/24/2017 Page: 3 of 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). 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
