United States v. Charles Bornman ( 2009 )

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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Precedential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
2