[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

Nos. 12-12658 ; 12-12659

D.C. Docket No. 1:11-cr-20131-RWG-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JONATHAN RANDALL CURSHEN,

NATHAN BRADLEY MONTGOMERY,

Defendants-Appellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

(May 28, 2014)

Case: 12-12658 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 1 of 5 
2

Before HULL, COX and FARRIS,∗ Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Defendants Jonathan Curshen and Nathan Montgomery appeal after a jury 

convicted them for crimes related to their illegal pump-and-dump stock 

manipulation scheme. After review of the record and the briefs of the parties, and 

having the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Defendants Curshen and Montgomery participated with many others in a 

conspiracy to defraud the investing public through a pump-and-dump stock 

manipulation scheme involving shares of CO2 Tech Ltd.’s (“CO2 Tech”) stock. 

A pump and dump scheme involves artificially inflating the price and 

volume of an owned stock—by promotional or trading activity—to sell the stock at 

a higher price. Once the overvalued shares are dumped, the price and volume of 

shares plummet and unsuspecting investors lose their money.

Defendants Curshen and Montgomery and their co-conspirators perpetrated 

their pump-and-dump stock manipulation scheme by issuing false and misleading 

press releases and other promotional materials and by coordinating the trading 

 

∗ Honorable Jerome Farris, United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, sitting by 

designation.

Case: 12-12658 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 2 of 5 
3

activities of CO2 Tech-stock sellers and buyers. Their scheme left unsuspecting 

investors holding worthless shares of CO2 Tech stock.

The superseding indictment charged defendants Curshen and Montgomery 

with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, and mail fraud, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1). The indictment also charged defendant Curshen 

with two counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts 6 and 8), 

and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 1956(h) (Count 10). The indictment also charged seven other defendants. 

In addition, the indictment sought forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. §§ 981 and 982. 

Only defendants Curshen and Montgomery proceeded to trial.1

 After an 

eleven-day trial, a jury found both defendants guilty of all counts for which they 

were indicted. Both defendants appeal.

II. DISCUSSION

On appeal defendant Curshen argues that the district court erred by 

(1) denying his motion to suppress without holding an evidentiary hearing; 

(2) failing to grant his third motion for a trial continuance; (3) imposing

restitution; (4) admitting evidence in violation of Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules 

 

1

Four co-conspirators pled guilty to the crimes alleged in the superseding indictment. 

Three co-conspirators are fugitives. 

Case: 12-12658 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 3 of 5 
4

of Evidence (“Rules”); (5) admitting evidence in violation of Rule 902(11); 

(6) admitting evidence in violation of Rule 403; and (7) violating the Confrontation 

Clause. Defendant Curshen also argues that the district court’s admission of this 

allegedly inadmissible evidence amounted to cumulative error. 

On appeal defendant Montgomery argues that the district court erred by 

(1) failing to acquit him based on an allegedly material variance between the 

indictment and trial evidence; (2) admitting inadmissible opinion evidence; and 

(3) admitting evidence in violation of Rule 404(b). 

Defendant Curshen’s and Montgomery’s arguments lack merit and warrant

no further discussion except for their Rule 404(b) claims. 

As to the Rule 404(b) arguments, there is a question regarding whether the 

district court abused its discretion in admitting such evidence over the defendants’ 

objections.

2

 Even assuming that the district court abused its discretion, such error 

was harmless because the trial record provides overwhelming evidence of 

defendants’ fraud. See United States v. Khanani, 502 F.3d 1281, 1292 (11th Cir. 

2007) (“Even if an evidentiary ruling is erroneous, that ruling will result in reversal 

only if the error was not harmless.” (quotation marks omitted)).

 

2

This Court reviews a district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. 

United States v. Joseph, 709 F.3d 1082, 1093 (11th Cir. 2013), cert. denied sub nom., Green v. 

United States, 134 S. Ct. 1273 (2014).

Case: 12-12658 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 4 of 5 
5

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm defendant Curshen’s and defendant 

Montgomery’s convictions and sentences.

AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12658 Date Filed: 05/28/2014 Page: 5 of 5