Wisam R. Rizk v. United States

This court has ruled that “conflict of interest” and “undisclosed self-dealing” by a private individual is not in the preview of §1346 (Percoco, 561 U.S., at 409-410). In this case, the underlying criterion of guilt was “conflict of interest” and “undisclosed self-dealing” with a bribery claim. The 3rd has ruled that jury instructions involving both, conflict of interest and a bribe are unconstitutionally vague. (Wright). The 6th, in this case, claims as long as there is a bribe, honest services can stand, no matter if “Conflict of interest” was the underly­ ing criterion of guilt. This case does not involve a federal government nexus. The question is: Under §1346 Honest Services, can “con­ flict of interest” and “undisclosed self­ dealing” be used as the underlying crite­ rion of guilt even when a kickback or bribe is alleged?

This Court has held that a Guilty Plea does Not Inherently Waive a Constitutional Challenge against the Statute. A defendants guilty plea to a theory of guilt held unconstitutionally vague by this court, is one which the government may not constitutionally prosecute no matter how validly his factual guilt is established. (Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975)). In collateral review an attack on a guilty plea must be a violation that is of constitutional or jurisdictional basis.