United States of America v. Charles Bornman

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:

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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

-- 2 of 2 --