Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Al J. Hurley, 13-13011 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Number: 13-13011 Visitors: 32
Filed: Oct. 20, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Case: 13-13011 Date Filed: 10/20/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 13-13011 _ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00015-WLS-TQL-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AL J. HURLEY, Defendant - Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia _ (October 20, 2014) Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER *, District Judge. * Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, Unite
More
Case: 13-13011 Date Filed: 10/20/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 13-13011 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:12-cr-00015-WLS-TQL-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AL J. HURLEY, Defendant - Appellant. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia ________________________ (October 20, 2014) Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER ∗, District Judge. ∗ Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation. Case: 13-13011 Date Filed: 10/20/2014 Page: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant Al J. Hurley was a County Commissioner in Sumter County, Georgia who was convicted by a jury on one count of attempted extortion and one count of federal program bribery. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for judgment of acquittal and motion for new trial, raising the following issues: 1. Did the district court err by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal because the evidence was insufficient to prove that he was acting under color of official right, that his conduct had a potential to affect interstate commerce, and that he intended to be influenced as a County Commissioner when he solicited and agreed to accept multiple bribe payments; and 2. Did the district court err when it denied Hurley’s motion for new trial and rejected his claim that the evidence established at trial materially varied from the allegations contained in the Indictment? After de novo review and consideration of the briefs and the record, and having the benefit of oral argument, we find no error in the proceedings in the district court, and we affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the district court’s May 29, 2013 Order. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer