Opinion
No. 07-3447.
Argued December 10, 2008.
Filed: March 6, 2009, April 24, 2009.
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.
BEFORE: FISHER, JORDAN and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.
ORDER AMENDING OPINION
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)").