United States v. Murphy ( 2003 )

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
6-4-2003
USA v. Murphy
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential
Docket No. 01-3757
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Murphy" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 424.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/424
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 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
PRECEDENTIAL
Filed June 4, 2003
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-3757
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
PETER A. MURPHY, Appellant
Present: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, McKEE and BECKER,
Circuit Judges
(Opinion Filed March 19, 2003)
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
It having been called to our attention that in footnote 4
of this opinion, in citing to the case of United States v.
Panarella, 277 F.3d 678 (3d Cir. 2002), we misstated the
nature of the charge of which the defendant there was
convicted, we hereby amend the opinion to correctly state
the charge, noting that this change has no effect on the
ratio decidendi or outcome of the case.
In the second sentence of footnote 4, delete the phrase,
“a private businessman who bribed a Pennsylvania State
Senator, but the,” and replace it with, “the owner of a tax
collection business, and he had hired a Pennsylvania State
Senator as a consultant who did not disclose his income
from the defendant as required by state law. The.” The
amended footnote shall read in full:
In Antico, the defendant was himself a public official. In
Panarella, the defendant was the owner of a tax
2
collection business, and he had hired a Pennsylvania
State Senator as a consultant who did not disclose his
income from the defendant as required by state law.
The Government’s theory was that the defendant was
guilty of being an accessory after the fact under 18
U.S.C. § 3 to a wire fraud scheme to deprive the public
of the State Senator’s honest services in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346. 277 F.3d at 689. Thus, the
central inquiry was whether the State Senator had
committed honest services wire fraud—not whether the
defendant had done so.
BY THE COURT:
/s/Edward R. Becker
Circuit Judge
Date: June 4, 2003
A True Copy:
Teste:
Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit