Opinion ID: 6325172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: “official act”

Text: Defreitas argues that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove that he engaged in an “official act” under V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 14, § 403. Specifically, he argues that as an enforcement officer for the Department of Licensing and Consumer Affairs he had no duty to report that Herrera was unlawfully present in the United States. He reasons, then, that his refusal to report Herrera cannot be an “official act.” Defreitas failed to raise this argument before the District Court, so we review this sufficiency question for plain error. FED. R. CRIM. P. 51. We use the familiar four-part framework from Olano, reversing only when there is an (1) “error;” (2) “that is plain;” (3) “that affect[ed] substantial rights;” and (4) that failure to correct the error would “seriously affect[] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (quoting United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15 (1985)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Ordinarily, when the government has failed to prove each essential element of the crime charged, we will reverse under Olano’s fourth prong.” United States v. Johnson, 19 F.4th 248, 256 (3d Cir. 2021). As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text. In re Adoption of L.O.F., 62 V.I. 655, 661 (2015). To be convicted for soliciting a bribe under this statute, the prosecution must prove that an individual is (1) “a judicial or other public officer or employee;” (2) who “asks or receives an emolument, gratuity, or reward, or any promise thereof, except such as may be authorized by law;” (3) “for doing any official act.” V.I. CODE ANN. tit. 14, § 403. At this stage of the litigation, the only argument before us is whether 15 refraining from reporting Herrera was an “official act” under