United States v. Charles Bornman

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2009
• Docket: 07-3447
• Status: Published

Opinion

Opinions of the United 2009 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

4-24-2009

USA v. Charles Bornman Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential

Docket No. 07-3447

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009

Recommended Citation "USA v. Charles Bornman" (2009). 2009 Decisions. Paper 1425. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2009/1425

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2009 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. PRECEDENTIAL

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

NO. 07-3447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

CHARLES BORNMAN, Appellant

On Appeal From the District Court For the District of the Virgin Islands (D.C. Crim. Action No. 03-cr-00127-1) District Judge: Hon. Raymond L. Finch

Argued December 10, 2008

BEFORE: FISHER, JORDAN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed March 6, 2009)

ORDER AMENDING OPINION

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge:

IT IS ORDERED that the opinion in this matter filed on March 6, 2009, is hereby amended as follows: On page 12, the first paragraph of V. Additional Count Two Arguments is deleted and is replaced by the following:

Bornman makes a number of additional arguments relating to Count Two, which we find without merit. His argument that the government failed to introduce evidence of a quid pro quo is without merit, because the statute requires no such evidence. See United States v. Gee, 432 F.3d 713, 714-15 (7th Cir. 2005) (“A quid pro quo of money for a specific legislative act is sufficient to violate the statute, but it is not necessary. It is enough if someone ‘corruptly . . . accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions . . . involving any thing of value of $5,000 or more.’ 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B)”).

By the Court

/s/ Walter K. Stapleton Circuit Judge

DATED: April 24, 2009