In United States v. Fleury, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed as a matter of first impression whether the federal cyberstalking statute was unconstitutionally overbroad, among other issues. The appellant, Brandy Fleury (“Fleury”), was convicted by a jury in the United States District Court of the Southern District of Florida for transmitting interstate threats in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) and cyberstalking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) after Fleury posed as different mass murderers on Instagram and sent threatening messages to individuals who lost family members in a mass shooting. Fleury appealed his conviction, challenging the constitutionality of the federal cyberbullying statute, the sufficiency of the indictment and evidence with regard to his intent, the admission of specific expert testimony, and the jury instructions. After addressing each claim, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed Fleury’s conviction on the grounds that 18 U.S.C. § 2261A(2)(B) is constitutional, both facially and as-applied Fleury’s actions, and that the district court made no reversible errors.