United States v. Tony DeVaughn Nelson (2013)

green · 19 citation events across 6 courts. Showing the 15 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).

All Green 15

Sort: By significance · Most recent

green United States v. Dennis M. Shepheard (2017)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion

United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 504 (11th Cir. 2013).

green UA v. Cedric Duane Ryans (2017)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 508 (11th Cir. 2013).

green United States v. Glenn Jasen (2017)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 508 (11th Cir. 2013) (stating that the vagueness doctrine does not require a statute to *803 define every factual situation that may arise).

stating that the vagueness doctrine does not require a statute to *803 define every factual situation that may arise

green United States v. Joseph W. Jordan (2014)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

Nevertheless, in other contexts, we have held that to act corruptly means that the defendant “voluntarily and deliberately engaged in unlawful conduct.” 2 United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 512 (11th Cir.2013) (determining that the jury instructions in a case involving honest-services fraud and federal-funds fraud were proper, in part, because they correctly instructed the jury as to the definition of “corruptly”).

green United States v. Michael A. Moody (2014)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 504 (11th Cir.2013).

green United States v. Anes Joseph (2013)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

Under Rule 403, a district court “may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of ... unfair prejudice.” Fed.R.Evid. 403; United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 512 (11th Cir.2013).

green United States v. William James Atkinson, III (2013)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 504 (11th Cir.2013).

green United States v. Charles Keith Sumner (2013)

Rule Authority · 11th Cir.

We review a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, United States v. Fortenberry, 971 F.2d 717, 721 (11th Cir.1992), and will not disturb such rulings unless “the district court has made a clear error of judgment, or has applied the wrong legal standard,” United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 512 (11th Cir.2013).

green United States v. Smith (2014)

Quote Authority · S.D.N.Y. · signal: cf. · 3 citations in this opinion

Cf. Nelson, 712 F.3d at 508 (“[W]e are mindful of the Supreme Court’s observation that defendants charged with bribery or kickbacks face an uphill climb in arguing that they did not and could not reasonably understand that their conduct was illegal under the statute.”).

“[W]e are mindful of the Supreme Court’s observation that defendants charged with bribery or kickbacks face an uphill climb in arguing that they did not and could not reasonably understand that their conduct was illegal under the statute.”

green Hogan v. United States (2021)

Rule Authority · M.D. Fla.

The vagueness doctrine does not “mean that the statute must define every factual situation that may arise.” United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 508 (11th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

citation omitted

green United States v. Matthew Borges (2025)

Cited (see also) · 6th Cir. · signal: see, e.g.

See, e.g., United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 509 (11th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

citation omitted

green United States v. Patrick Richard Smith (2019)

Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see

See United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 504 (11th Cir. 2013).

green United States v. Jeffrey Wayne Aunspaugh (2015)

Cited · 11th Cir. · signal: see

See United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 509 (11th Cir.2013).

green Doe v. Marshall (2019)

Cited · M.D. Ala. · signal: see

See United States v. Nelson , 712 F.3d 498 , 508 (11th Cir. 2013).

green United States v. Taylor (2016)

Cited · A.F.C.C.A. · signal: see

See United States v. Nelson, 712 F.3d 498, 508 (11th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285, 304 (2008) (“There is no First Amendment exception from the general principle of criminal law that a person attempting to commit a crime need not be exonerated because he has a mistaken view of the facts.”).