• FindLaw
• DC CIRCUIT COURT

United States Court of Appeals for the district of columbia circuit

No. 97-3072                                            September Term, 1997

United States of America, Appellee96cr00193-01

v.

Sun-Diamond Growers of California, Appellant

Before: Williams, Henderson and Tatel, Circuit Judges .

                          

O  R  D  E  R

It is ORDERED by the Court that the opinion of March 20, 1998 be amended as follows:

Page 11, line 9, before " Umans ," insert a footnote 5 as follows and renumber the rest of the footnotes.

5. The independent counsel's briefs made no mention of Standefer , but in a petition for rehearing he notes that the Supreme Court, in affirming the judgment on other grounds, Standefer v. United States , 447 U.S. 10 (1980), said in a footnote that "the instructions to the jury on criminal intent" were "correct." Id . at 14 n. 8. Standefer's briefs in the Supreme Court and the Third Circuit's unpublished panel opinion, United States v. Standefer , 1979 WL 4863 (3d Cir. 1979), however, make clear that the defendant's challenge was to the absence of a quid pro quo requirement, and to the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury that the defendant's gifts to an I.R.S. agent had not in fact resulted in the favorable audit sought by the donor. Id . at *4-8. In any event, the instructions in Standefer , reprinted in relevant part in the Third Circuit's panel opinion, id . at *5, *6, were far narrower than the charge in this case, repeatedly emphasizing the requirement that the gifts be given for or because of tax audits performed by the donee.

                                        
FOR THE COURT:

                                        Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                   BY:

                                        Deputy Clerk

FOOTNOTES