Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): but that is no longer the case. Id. at 411, 130 S.Ct. 2896. Pellicano argues that the predicate acts of honest services fraud must be vacated because the jury instructions did not reflect Skilling’s narrowing of the crime. We disagree. The jury found that both Pellicano and Arneson committed bribery predicate acts under California law. Under Skilling, bribery remains a basis for honest services fraud. It is apparent from the jury’s findings regarding bribery that the Defendants would have been convicted on the bribery theory of honest services fraud by itself. The references to the invalidated conflict of interest theory in the jury instructions and the government’s argument at trial therefore did not prejudice Defendants. United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524, 544 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Marcus, 560 U.S. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted (B) holding that the jurys guilty verdict on the separate substantive count of bribery under federal law confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted the defendant of honest services fraud if the courts definition had been limited to the bribery basis that skilling expressly approved (C) holding that the proper harmlesserror inquiry asks whether absent the improperly introduced evidence it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict (D) holding that the proper harmlesserror inquiry asks absent the improperly introduced evidence is it clear beyond reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty (E) holding that a jury verdict of guilty constitutes a conviction for purposes of the federal firearms statute and therefore the defendant was convicted of a felony during the interval between the jurys return of its guilty verdict and his scheduled sentencing
Output (English): holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted