
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Alan NURSEY, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey Alan Nursey, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-10432, No. 16-10466
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    (August 24, 2017)
    R. Randolph Neeley, Sandra J. Stewart, Robert Gilmon Anderson, George L. Beck, Jr., DeAnne M, Calho'on, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
    Richard Franklin Matthews, Jr., The Law Office of Richard F. Matthews, Jr., LLC, Montgomery, AL, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before WILSON and NEWSOM, Circuit Judges, and MORENO, District Judge.
    
      
      
         Honorable Federico A. Moreno, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   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.

Nursey makes three arguments on appeal regarding his retaliation conviction. First, Nursey argues that the statute under which he was convicted, 18 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.

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. 
      
      . 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.
     
      
      . Finally, provided we do not reverse Nur-sey’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, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).
     