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 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

*984 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.