United States v. Tamika Riley ( 2010 )

PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________________
Nos. 08-3361, 08-3413, 08-3758, and 08-3759
___________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Appellee and Cross-Appellant
v.
TAMIKA RILEY AND SHARPE JAMES
Appellants and Cross-Appellees
___________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey
(D.C. No. 2-07-cr-00578)
District Judge: Honorable William J. Martini
___________________
Argued April 13, 2010
Before: SLOVITER and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges, and RESTANI,* Judge
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the opinion in the above case, filed
September 16, 2010, be amended as follows:
Page 10, footnote 12, line 4, substitute “note11" for “note12".
*
Honorable Jane A. Restani, Chief Judge of the United States Court of
International Trade, sitting by designation.
Page 14, delete the last sentence of section “i”.
Page 14, heading “ii”, which read:
Harmless Error Review
shall read:
Affect on Appellants’ Substantial Rights
Page 14, delete the first sentence of section “ii”, including citations.
Page 15, first sentence of the first full paragraph which read:
While it is true that the jury convicted James of a substantive violation
referred to in one of the alternative descriptions of duty, 18 U.S.C. § 666(Count 4), we cannot be certain of how the jury utilized the broad definition
of an honest services violation given in connection with the entire
conspiracy charge.
shall read:
While it is true that the jury convicted James of a substantive violation
referred to in one of the alternative descriptions of duty, 18 U.S.C. § 666(Count 4), dependents have met their burden of showing a reasonable
probability that the jury utilized the broad definition of an honest services
violation given in connection with the entire conspiracy charge.
Page 15, delete the last sentence of the first full paragraph.
BY THE COURT,
/s/ Jane A. Restani
Judge
DATED: October 21, 2010
2