United States v. Robert McDonnell

PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT F. MCDONNELL,

Defendant – Appellant.

------------------------------------

FORMER VIRGINIA ATTORNEYS GENERAL; ANDREW P. MILLER; ANTHONY
FRANCIS TROY; J. MARSHALL COLEMAN; MARY SUE TERRY; STEPHEN
DOUGLAS ROSENTHAL; MARK L. EARLEY; NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS; NANCY GERTNER, Law Professor;
CHARLES J. OGLETREE, JR., Law Professor; JOHN C. JEFFRIES,
JR., Law Professor; BENJAMIN TODD JEALOUS; REPUBLICAN
GOVERNORS PUBLIC POLICY COMMITTEE; FORMER STATE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL (NON-VIRGINIA); BUSINESS LEADERS AND PUBLIC POLICY
ADVOCATES; VIRGINIA LAW PROFESSORS; FORMER FEDERAL
OFFICIALS; MEMBERS AND FORMER MEMBERS OF THE VIRGINIA
GENERAL ASSEMBLY,

Amici Supporting Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cr-00012-JRS-1)

Argued: May 12, 2015 Decided: July 10, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Thacker wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Motz and Judge King joined.

ARGUED: Noel J. Francisco, JONES DAY, Washington, D.C., for
Appellant. Richard Daniel Cooke, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: John L.
Brownlee, Daniel I. Small, Christopher M. Iaquinto, Elizabeth N.
Jochum, HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP, Washington, D.C.; Henry W. Asbill,
Charlotte H. Taylor, James M. Burnham, Ian Samuel, JONES DAY,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Dana J. Boente, United States
Attorney, Ryan S. Faulconer, Assistant United States Attorney,
Raymond Hulser, Acting Chief, Public Integrity Section,
Alexandria, Virginia, Michael S. Dry, Assistant United States
Attorney, Jessica D. Aber, Assistant United States Attorney,
David V. Harbach, II, Criminal Division, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. William H.
Hurd, Stephen C. Piepgrass, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Richmond,
Virginia, for Amici Former Virginia Attorneys General Andrew P.
Miller, Anthony Francis Troy, J. Marshall Coleman, Mary Sue
Terry, Stephen Douglas Rosenthal, and Mark L. Earley. David B.
Smith, SMITH & ZIMMERMAN, PLLC, Alexandria, Virginia; John D.
Cline, LAW OFFICE OF JOHN D. CLINE, San Francisco, California,
for Amicus National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
William W. Taylor, III, ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP, Washington, D.C.,
for Amici Nancy Gertner, Law Professor, Charles J. Ogletree,
Jr., Law Professor, and John C. Jeffries, Jr., Law Professor.
Wyatt B. Durrette, Jr., Barrett E. Pope, Robert Rae Gordon,
DURRETTECRUMP PLC, Richmond, Virginia, for Amicus Benjamin Todd
Jealous. Charles J. Cooper, David H. Thompson, Peter A.
Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf, COOPER & KIRK, PLLC, Washington,
D.C., for Amicus Republican Governors Public Policy Committee,
a/k/a RGPPC. Brian D. Boone, Emily C. McGowan, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Edward T. Kang, ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Washington, D.C.,
for Amici Former State Attorneys General (Non-Virginia).
Gregory N. Stillman, Norfolk, Virginia, Edward J. Fuhr,
Johnathan E. Schronce, Richmond, Virginia, William J. Haun,
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Business
Leaders and Public Policy Advocates. Timothy M. Richardson,
POOLE MAHONEY PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Amici Virginia
Law Professors. William J. Kilberg, Thomas G. Hungar, Helgi C.
Walker, David Debold, Katherine C. Yarger, Jacob T. Spencer,
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Former
Federal Officials. John S. Davis, Joseph R. Pope, Jonathan T.
Lucier, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Amici Members
and Former Members of the Virginia General Assembly.

2
THACKER, Circuit Judge:

Over the course of five weeks of trial, federal

prosecutors sought to prove that former Governor of Virginia

Robert F. McDonnell (“Appellant”) and his wife, Maureen

McDonnell, accepted money and lavish gifts in exchange for

efforts to assist a Virginia company in securing state

university testing of a dietary supplement the company had

developed. The jury found Appellant guilty of eleven counts of

corruption and not guilty of two counts of making a false

statement. 1

Appellant appeals his convictions, alleging a

multitude of errors. Chiefly, Appellant challenges the jury

instructions -- claiming the district court misstated the law --

and the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him. He

also argues that his trial should have been severed from his

wife’s trial; that the district court’s voir dire questioning

violated his Sixth Amendment rights; and that the district court

made several erroneous evidentiary rulings. Upon consideration

of each of Appellant’s contentions, we conclude that the jury’s

1 The jury also found Mrs. McDonnell guilty of eight counts
of corruption and one count of obstruction of an official
proceeding. The jury found her not guilty of three counts of
corruption and one count of making a false statement. Her
appeal is not at issue here, as it is pursued separately.

3
verdict must stand and that the district court’s judgment should

be affirmed.

I.

A.

On November 3, 2009, Appellant was elected the

seventy-first Governor of Virginia. From the outset, he made

economic development and the promotion of Virginia businesses

priorities of his administration.

The economic downturn preceding the election had taken

a personal toll on Appellant. Mobo Real Estate Partners LLC

(“Mobo”), a business operated by Appellant and his sister, was

losing money on a pair of beachfront rental properties in

Virginia Beach. When Appellant became Governor, he and his

sister were losing more than $40,000 each year. By 2011, they

owed more than $11,000 per month in loan payments. Each year

their loan balance increased, and by 2012, the outstanding

balance was nearing $2.5 million.

Appellant was also piling up credit card debt. In

January 2010, the month of his inauguration, Appellant and his

wife had a combined credit card balance exceeding $74,000.

Eight months later, in September 2010, the combined balance

exceeded $90,000.

4
 B.

While Appellant was campaigning on promises of

economic development in Virginia, Virginia-based Star Scientific

Inc. (“Star”) and its founder and chief executive officer Jonnie

Williams were close to launching a new product: Anatabloc. For

years, Star had been evaluating the curative potential of

anatabine, an alkaloid found in the tobacco plant, focusing on

whether it could be used to treat chronic inflammation.

Anatabloc was one of the anatabine-based dietary supplements

Star developed as a result of these years of evaluation.

Star wanted the Food and Drug Administration to

classify Anatabloc as a pharmaceutical. Otherwise, it would

have to market Anatabloc as a nutraceutical, which generally has

less profit potential than a pharmaceutical. Classification as

a pharmaceutical would require expensive testing, clinical

trials, and studies. But Star did not have the financial

wherewithal to conduct the necessary testing, trials, and

studies on its own. It needed outside research and funding.

C.

Appellant and Williams first met in December 2009 --

shortly after Appellant’s election to the governorship but

before his inauguration. Appellant had used Williams’s plane

during his campaign, and he wanted to thank Williams over dinner

5
in New York. 2 During dinner, Williams ordered a $5,000 bottle of

cognac and the conversation turned to the gown Appellant’s wife

would wear to Appellant’s inauguration. Williams mentioned that

he knew Oscar de la Renta and offered to purchase Mrs. McDonnell

an expensive custom dress. 3

In October 2010, Appellant and Williams crossed paths

again. This time, the two were on the same plane -- Williams’s

plane -- making their way from California to Virginia. During

the six-hour flight, Williams extolled the virtues of Anatabloc

and explained that he needed Appellant’s help to move forward

with the product:

[W]hat I did was I explained to him how I
discovered it. I gave him a basic education
on the -- on smoking, the diseases that
don’t happen with smokers and just tried to
make sure he understood, you know, what I
had discovered in this tobacco plant and
that I was going to -- what I needed from

2 Williams was one of several individuals who offered the
use of a private plane to Appellant during his campaign on an
as-needed basis. Although Appellant had used Williams’s plane
during his campaign, the two men did not meet until December
2009.
3 In the end, Williams did not purchase an inauguration
dress for Mrs. McDonnell. According to Williams, Appellant’s
chief counsel, Jacob Jasen Eige, called Williams, saying, “I
understand that you’re getting ready to purchase [Mrs.]
McDonnell a dress for the inauguration. I’m calling to let you
know that you can’t do that.” J.A. 2208 (internal quotation
marks omitted). Citations to the “J.A.” refer to the Joint
Appendix filed by the parties in this appeal.

6
 him was that I needed testing and I wanted
to have this done in Virginia.

J.A. 2211.

By the end of the flight, the two agreed that

“independent testing in Virginia was a good idea.” J.A. 2211.

Appellant agreed to introduce Williams to Dr. William A. Hazel

Jr., the Commonwealth’s secretary of health and human resources.

In April 2011, Mrs. McDonnell invited Williams to join

the first couple at a political rally in New York. “I’ll have

you seated with the Governor and we can go shopping now,” Mrs.

McDonnell said, according to Williams. J.A. 2222 (internal

quotation marks omitted). So Williams took Mrs. McDonnell on a

shopping spree; they lunched and shopped at Bergdorf Goodman and

visited Oscar de la Renta and Louis Vuitton stores on Fifth

Avenue. Williams bought Mrs. McDonnell dresses and a white

leather coat from Oscar de la Renta; shoes, a purse, and a

raincoat from Louis Vuitton; and a dress from Bergdorf Goodman.

Williams spent approximately $20,000 on Mrs. McDonnell during

this shopping spree. That evening, Williams sat with Appellant

and Mrs. McDonnell during a political rally.

A few weeks later, on April 29, Williams joined

Appellant and Mrs. McDonnell for a private dinner at the

Governor’s Mansion. The discussion at dinner centered on

Anatabloc and the need for independent testing and studies.

7
Appellant, who had campaigned on promoting business in Virginia,

was “intrigued that [Star] was a Virginia company with an idea,”

and he wanted to have Anatabloc studies conducted within the

Commonwealth’s borders. J.A. 6561.

Two days after this private dinner -- on May 1,

2011 -- Mrs. McDonnell received an email via Williams. 4 The

email included a link to an article entitled “Star Scientific

Has Home Run Potential,” which discussed Star’s research and

stock. Mrs. McDonnell forwarded this email to Appellant at

12:17 p.m. Less than an hour later, Appellant texted his

sister, asking for information about loans and bank options for

their Mobo properties. Later that evening, Appellant emailed

his daughter Cailin, asking her to send him information about

the payments he still owed for her wedding.

The next day, May 2, Mrs. McDonnell and Williams met

at the Governor’s Mansion to discuss Anatabloc. However, Mrs.

McDonnell began explaining her family’s financial woes --

thoughts about filing for bankruptcy, high-interest loans, the

decline in the real estate market, and credit card debt. Then,

according to Williams, Mrs. McDonnell said, “I have a background

4 Williams did not send the email to Mrs. McDonnell.
However, the sender wrote, “Please give to the governor and his
wife as per Jonnie Williams.” G.S.A. 3. Citations to the
“G.S.A.” refer to the Supplemental Appendix filed by the
Government.

8
in nutritional supplements and I can be helpful to you with this

project, with your company. The Governor says it’s okay for me

to help you and -- but I need you to help me. I need you to

help me with this financial situation.” J.A. 2231 (internal

quotation marks omitted). Mrs. McDonnell asked to borrow

$50,000. Williams agreed to loan the money to the McDonnells.

Mrs. McDonnell also mentioned that she and her husband owed

$15,000 for their daughter’s wedding reception. Again, Williams

agreed to provide the money. Before cutting the checks,

Williams called Appellant to “make sure [he] knew about it.”

J.A. 2233. “I called him and said that, you know, ‘I met with

Maureen. I understand the financial problems and I’m willing to

help. I just wanted to make sure that you knew about this,’”

Williams recounted at trial. Id. Appellant’s response was

“Thank you.” Id.

Three days later, on May 5 at 11 a.m., Appellant met

with Secretary Hazel and Chief of Staff Martin Kent to discuss

the strategic plan for the state’s health and human resources

office. Shortly after the meeting, Appellant directed his

assistant to forward to Hazel the article about Star that Mrs.

McDonnell had earlier brought to Appellant’s attention.

Williams returned to the Governor’s Mansion on May 23,

2011, to deliver two checks for the amounts discussed on May 2:

a $50,000 check made out to Mrs. McDonnell and a $15,000 check

9
that was not made out to anyone but was going to the wedding

caterers. After Williams delivered these checks to Mrs.

McDonnell, Appellant expressed his gratitude in a May 28 email

to Williams:

Johnnie. Thanks so much for alll your help
with my family. Your very generous gift to
Cailin was most appreciated as well as the
golf round tomorrow for the boys. Maureen
is excited about the trip to fla to learn
more about the products . . . . Have a
restful weekend with your family. Thanks. 5

G.S.A. 20. The next day, as mentioned in the email, Appellant,

his two sons, and his soon-to-be son-in-law spent the day at

Kinloch Golf Club in Manakin-Sabot, Virginia. During this

outing, they spent more than seven hours playing golf, eating,

and shopping. Williams, who was not present, covered the

$2,380.24 bill.

Also as mentioned in the email, Mrs. McDonnell

traveled to Florida at the start of June to attend a Star-

sponsored event at the Roskamp Institute. 6 While there, she

addressed the audience, expressing her support for Star and its

research. She also invited the audience to the launch for

Anatabloc, which would be held at the Governor’s Mansion. The

5Text messages and emails are quoted verbatim without
identifying any mistakes in the original. Alterations have been
made only when necessary for clarification.
6The Roskamp Institute is a private research institute that
studies Alzheimer’s disease.

10
same day -- June 1, 2011 -- she purchased 6,000 shares of Star

stock at $5.1799 per share, for a total of $31,079.40.

Weeks later, Williams sent Appellant a letter about

conducting Anatabloc studies in Virginia. Williams wrote, “I am

suggesting that you use the attached protocol to initiate the

‘Virginia study’ of Anatabloc at the Medical College of Virginia

and the University of Virginia School of Medicine, with an

emphasis on endocrinology, cardiology, osteoarthritis and

gastroenterology.” G.S.A. 29. Appellant forwarded the letter

and its attachments to Secretary Hazel for review.

Appellant’s political action committee -- Opportunity

Virginia (the “PAC”) -- hosted and funded a retreat at the Omni

Homestead Resort in Hot Springs, Virginia. The retreat began on

June 23, 2011, and was attended by the top donors to Opportunity

Virginia. Williams, “a $100,000 in-kind contributor to the

campaign and the PAC,” was invited, and he flew Appellant’s

children to the resort for the retreat. J.A. 6117. Appellant

and Williams played golf together during the retreat. A few

days later, Williams sent golf bags with brand new clubs and

golf shoes to Appellant and one of his sons.

From July 28 to July 31, Appellant and his family

vacationed at Williams’s multi-million-dollar home at Smith

Mountain Lake in Virginia. Williams allowed the McDonnells to

stay there free of charge. He also paid $2,268 for the

11
McDonnells to rent a boat. And Williams provided transportation

for the family: Appellant’s children used Williams’s Range Rover

for the trip to the home, and he paid more than $600 to have his

Ferrari delivered to the home for Appellant to use.

Appellant drove the Ferrari back to Richmond at the

end of the vacation on July 31. During the three-hour drive,

Mrs. McDonnell snapped several pictures of Appellant driving

with the Ferrari’s top down. Mrs. McDonnell emailed one of the

photographs to Williams at 7:47 p.m. At 11:29 p.m., after

returning from the Smith Mountain Lake vacation, Appellant

directed Secretary Hazel to have his deputy attend a meeting

about Anatabloc with Mrs. McDonnell at the Governor’s Mansion

the next day.

Hazel sent a staffer, Molly Huffstetler, to the August

1 meeting, which Williams also attended. During the meeting,

Williams discussed clinical trials at the University of Virginia

(“UVA”) and Virginia Commonwealth University (“VCU”), home of

the Medical College of Virginia (“MCV”). Then Williams and Mrs.

McDonnell met with Dr. John Clore from VCU, who Williams said

was “important, and he could cause studies to happen at VCU’s

medical school.” J.A. 2273. Williams -- with Mrs. McDonnell at

his side -- told Dr. Clore that clinical testing of Anatabloc in

Virginia was important to Appellant. After the meeting ended,

Mrs. McDonnell noticed the Rolex watch adorning Williams’s

12
wrist. She mentioned that she wanted to get a Rolex for

Appellant. When Williams asked if she wanted him to purchase

one for Appellant, she responded affirmatively.

The next day -- August 2, 2011 -- Mrs. McDonnell

purchased another 522 shares of Star stock at $3.82 per share,

for a total of $1,994.04.

Appellant and one of his sons returned to Kinloch Golf

Club on August 13, 2011. The bill for this golf outing, which

Williams again paid, was $1,309.17. The next day, Williams

purchased a Rolex from Malibu Jewelers in Malibu, California.

The Rolex cost between $6,000 and $7,000 and featured a custom

engraving: “Robert F. McDonnell, 71st Governor of Virginia.”

J.A. 2275 (internal quotation marks omitted). Mrs. McDonnell

later took several pictures of Appellant showing off his new

Rolex -- pictures that were later sent to Williams via text

message.

Over the next few weeks, Governor’s Mansion staff

planned and coordinated a luncheon to launch Anatabloc -- an

event paid for by Appellant’s PAC. Invitations bore the

Governor’s seal and read, “Governor and Mrs. Robert F. McDonnell

Request the Pleasure of your Company at a Luncheon.” G.S.A.

104. Invitees included Dr. Clore and Dr. John Lazo from UVA.

At the August 30 luncheon, each place setting featured samples

of Anatabloc, and Williams handed out checks for grant

13
applications -- each for $25,000 -- to doctors from various

medical institutions. 7

Appellant also attended the luncheon. According to

Lazo, Appellant asked attendees various questions about their

thoughts about Anatabloc:

So I think one question he asked us was, did
we think that there was some scientific
validity to the conversation and some of the
pre-clinical studies that were discussed, or
at least alluded to. He also, I think,
asked us whether or not there was any reason
to explore this further; would it help to
have additional information. And also, he
asked us about could this be something good
for the Commonwealth, particularly as it
relates to [the] economy or job creation.

J.A. 3344. According to Williams, Appellant was “[a]sking

questions like . . . ‘What are the end points here? What are

you looking for to show efficacy with the studies? How are you

going to proceed with that?’” Id. at 2283. Appellant also

thanked the attendees for their presence and “talked about his

interest in a Virginia company doing this, and his interest in

the product.” Id. at 3927. Overall, “[Appellant] was generally

supportive. . . . [T]hat was the purpose.” Id. at 2284.

7In total, Williams provided $200,000 for grant
applications. All of the checks were distributed to researchers
either at or about the time of the Anatabloc launch luncheon at
the Governor’s Mansion.

14
 Despite the fanfare of the luncheon, Star’s President,

Paul L. Perito, began to worry that Star had lost the support of

UVA and VCU. In the fall of 2011, Perito was working with those

universities to file grant applications. During a particular

call with UVA officials, Perito felt the officials were

unprepared. According to Perito, when Williams learned about

this information, “[h]e was furious and said, ‘I can’t

understand it. [Appellant] and his wife are so supportive of

this and suddenly the administration has no interest.’” J.A.

3934.

D.

Prior to the beginning of 2012, Mrs. McDonnell sold

all of her 6,522 shares of Star stock for $15,279.45, resulting

in a loss of more than $17,000. This allowed Appellant to omit

disclosure of the stock purchases on a required financial

disclosure form known as a Statement of Economic Interest. Then

on January 20, 2012 -- four days after the Statement of Economic

Interest had been filed -- Mrs. McDonnell purchased 6,672 shares

of Star stock at $2.29 per share, for a total of $15,276.88.

In the meantime, on January 7, 2012, Appellant made

another golf visit to Kinloch Golf Club, running up a $1,368.91

bill that Williams again paid. Appellant omitted this golf

outing and the 2011 golf trips from his Statements of Economic

Interest. See J.A. 723 (noting Appellant’s “deliberate omission

15
of his golf-related gifts paid by Jonnie Williams”). Appellant

also omitted from his Statement of Economic Interest the $15,000

check for the caterers at his daughter’s wedding.

Also in January 2012, Williams discussed the Mobo

properties with Mrs. McDonnell, who wanted additional loans. As

a result, Williams agreed to loan more money. At the same time,

he mentioned to Mrs. McDonnell that the studies with UVA were

proceeding slowly. Mrs. McDonnell was “furious when [Williams]

told her that [they were] bogged down in the administration.”

J.A. 2308. Later, Mrs. McDonnell called Williams to advise him

that she had relayed this information to Appellant, who

“want[ed] the contact information of the people that [Star]

[was] dealing with at [UVA].” Id. at 2309 (internal quotation

marks omitted).

Appellant followed up on these discussions by calling

Williams on February 3, 2012, to talk about a $50,000 loan.

Initially, Appellant wanted a cash loan, but Williams mentioned

that he could loan stock to Appellant. Williams proposed “that

he could loan that stock either to [Appellant’s] wife or he

could loan it to [Mobo].” J.A. 6224. This conversation

continued to February 29, when Williams visited the Governor’s

Mansion. During this meeting, Appellant and Williams discussed

the potential terms of a stock transfer. However, Appellant and

Williams did not move forward with this idea because Williams

16
discovered he would have to report a stock transfer to the

Securities and Exchange Commission. At trial, Williams

testified that he did not want to transfer Star stock because he

“didn’t want anyone to know that I was helping the Governor

financially with his problems while he was helping our company.”

Id. at 2333-34. When asked what he expected in return from

Appellant, Williams testified, “I expected what had already

happened, that he would continue to help me move this product

forward in Virginia” by “assisting with the universities, with

the testing, or help with government employees, or publicly

supporting the product.” Id. at 2355. In the end, Williams

agreed to make a $50,000 loan, writing a check in this amount to

the order of Mobo on March 6.

Also on February 3, one of Williams’s employees

responded to Mrs. McDonnell’s request for a list of doctors

Williams wished to invite to an upcoming healthcare industry

leaders reception at the Governor’s Mansion. The employee

emailed the list of doctors to Mrs. McDonnell. Four days later

-- on February 7 -- Mrs. McDonnell sent a revised list of

invitees for this event, a list that now included the doctors

identified by Williams. The next day, Sarah Scarbrough,

director of the Governor’s Mansion, sent an email to Secretary

Hazel’s assistant, Elaina Schramm. Scarbrough informed Schramm

that “[t]he First Lady and Governor were going over the list

17
last night for the healthcare industry event. The Governor

wants to make sure [head officers at UVA and VCU, along with

those of other institutions,] are included in the list.” G.S.A.

146.

Mrs. McDonnell received an email, as previously

requested by Appellant, containing the names of the UVA

officials with whom Star had been working. She forwarded this

list to Appellant and his chief counsel, Jacob Jasen Eige, on

February 9. The next day, while riding with Appellant, Mrs.

McDonnell followed up with Eige:

Pls call Jonnie today [and] get him to fill
u in on where this is at. Gov wants to know
why nothing has developed w studies after
Jonnie gave $200,000. I’m just trying to
talk w Jonnie. Gov wants to get this going
w VCU MCV. Pls let us know what u find out
after we return . . . .

G.S.A. 154. 8

Less than a week later -- on February 16, 2012 --

Appellant emailed Williams to check on the status of

certificates and documents relating to loans Williams was

providing for Mobo. Six minutes after Appellant sent this

8
The $200,000 mentioned in Mrs. McDonnell’s email to chief
counsel Eige referred to checks that Star distributed to
researchers either at or about the time of the Anatabloc launch
luncheon at the Governor’s Mansion.

18
email, he emailed Eige: “Pls see me about anatabloc issues at

VCU and UVA. Thx.” G.S.A. 157.

The healthcare industry leaders reception was held on

February 29 -- the same day as Appellant’s private meeting about

securing a loan from Williams. Following the reception,

Appellant, Mrs. McDonnell, Williams, and two doctors went out

for a $1,400 dinner on Williams’s dime. During dinner the

diners discussed Anatabloc. Mrs. McDonnell talked about her use

of Anatabloc, and Appellant asked one of the doctors -- a Star

consultant -- “How big of a discovery is this?” J.A. 2728

(internal quotation marks omitted). At one point during the

dinner Mrs. McDonnell invited the two doctors to stay at the

Governor’s Mansion for the evening -- an offer the doctors

accepted.

On March 21, 2012, Appellant met with Virginia

Secretary of Administration Lisa Hicks-Thomas, who oversaw state

employee health plans and helped determine which drugs would be

covered by the state health plan. At one point during the

meeting, Appellant reached into his pocket, retrieving a bottle

of Anatabloc. He told Hicks-Thomas that Anatabloc was “working

well for him, and that he thought it would be good for . . .

state employees.” J.A. 4227. He then asked Hicks-Thomas to

meet with representatives from Star.

19
 Almost two months later -- on May 18, 2012 --

Appellant sent Williams a text message concerning yet another

loan: “Johnnie. Per voicemail would like to see if you could

extend another 20k loan for this year. Call if possible and

I’ll ask mike to send instructions. Thx bob.” G.S.A. 166.

Twelve minutes later, Williams responded, “Done, tell me who to

make it out to and address. Will FedEx. Jonnie.” Id. at 168.

Later the same month -- from May 18 to May 26 --

Appellant and his family vacationed at Kiawah Island in South

Carolina. According to Appellant, the $23,000 vacation was a

gift from William H. Goodwin Jr., whom Appellant characterized

as a personal friend. Appellant did not report this gift on his

2012 Statement of Economic Interest. He said he did not need to

report it because it fell under the “personal friend” exception

to the reporting requirements.

Between April and July 2012, Appellant emailed and

texted Williams about Star stock on four occasions, each

coinciding with a rise in the stock price. In response to a

text sent on July 3, Williams said, “Johns Hopkins human

clinical trials report on aug 8. If you need cash let me know.

Let’s go golfing and sailing Chatham Bars inn Chatham mass labor

day weekend if you can. Business about to break out strong.

Jonnie.” G.S.A. 170.

20
 Appellant and his wife took Williams up on his Labor

Day weekend vacation offer. Williams spent more than $7,300 on

this vacation for the McDonnells. Williams paid the McDonnells’

share of a $5,823.79 bill for a private clambake. Also joining

in on the weekend excursion was one of the doctors who attended

the February healthcare leaders reception, whom Williams invited

in an attempt “to try to help get the Governor more involved.”

J.A. 2371.

Appellant said he learned in December 2012 that Mrs.

McDonnell had repurchased Star stock in January 2012 -- despite

having sold her entire holding of Star stock the previous year.

Appellant testified that he “was pretty upset with her.” J.A.

6270. This revelation led to a tense conversation about

reporting requirements:

[I]t was her money that she had used for
this. But I told her, you know, “Listen.
If you have this stock, you know, this is”
-- “again, triggers a reporting requirement
for me. I can do it, but I need” -- “I just
don’t” -- “I really don’t appreciate you
doing things that really” -- “that affect me
without” -- “without me knowing about it.”

Id. at 6271. That Christmas, Mrs. McDonnell transferred her

Star stock to her children as a gift. This again allowed

Appellant to file a Statement of Economic Interest that did not

report ownership of the stock. That same month -- December 2012

21
-- Williams gave Appellant’s daughter Jeanine a $10,000 wedding

gift.

E.

Eventually, all of these events came to light. And on

January 21, 2014, a grand jury indicted Appellant and Mrs.

McDonnell in a fourteen-count indictment. Appellant and Mrs.

McDonnell were charged with one count of conspiracy to commit

honest-services wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349;

three counts of honest-services wire fraud, in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 1343; one count of conspiracy to obtain property under

color of official right, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; six

counts of obtaining property under color of official right, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; two counts of making a false

statement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1014; and one count of

obstruction of official proceedings, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1512(c)(2).

Ultimately, the jury verdict of September 4, 2014,

found Appellant not guilty of the false statements counts but

guilty of all eleven counts of corruption. 9

9 The corruption counts include one count of conspiracy to
commit honest-services wire fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1349;
three counts of honest-services wire fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1343; one count of conspiracy to obtain property under color
of official right pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1951; and six counts
of obtaining property under color of official right pursuant to
(Continued)
22
 At sentencing the Government requested a sentence of

78 months -- or six and a half years -- of imprisonment, which

was at the low end of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines

range. However, the district court departed downward and

sentenced Appellant to two years of imprisonment, followed by

two years of supervised release. Appellant now challenges his

convictions, asserting a litany of errors.

II.

A.

Motion for Severance

To begin, Appellant argues that the district court

erred when it denied both his motion for severance and his

request for ex parte consideration of this motion. We review

these rulings for an abuse of discretion. See United States v.

Lighty, 616 F.3d 321, 348 (4th Cir. 2010) (severance); RZS

Holdings AVV v. PDVSA Petroleo S.A., 506 F.3d 350, 356 (4th Cir.

2007) (ex parte proceeding).

1.

Appellant contends that he was entitled to a trial

separate from the trial of Mrs. McDonnell. He argues that a

joint trial precluded him from calling Mrs. McDonnell as a

18 U.S.C. § 1951. Only Mrs. McDonnell was charged with
obstruction of official proceedings.

23
witness and thus introducing exculpatory testimony. The

district court denied Appellant’s motion for severance.

Appellant claims this decision was an abuse of the court’s

discretion.

In general, “defendants indicted together should be

tried together.” Lighty, 616 F.3d at 348. This is especially

true when, as in this case, the defendants are charged with

conspiracy. See United States v. Parodi, 703 F.2d 768, 779 (4th

Cir. 1983). So a defendant seeking severance based on the need

for a co-defendant’s testimony must make an initial showing of

“(1) a bona fide need for the testimony of his co-defendant, (2)

the likelihood that the co-defendant would testify at a second

trial and waive his Fifth Amendment privilege, (3) the substance

of his co-defendant’s testimony, and (4) the exculpatory nature

and effect of such testimony.” Id. After the initial showing

is made, a district court should

(1) examine the significance of the
testimony in relation to the defendant’s
theory of defense; (2) assess the extent of
prejudice caused by the absence of the
testimony; (3) pay close attention to
judicial administration and economy; (4)
give weight to the timeliness of the
motion[;] and (5) consider the likelihood
that the co-defendant’s testimony could be
impeached.

Id.

24
 Appellant failed to satisfy even the initial showing

requirements of United States v. Parodi. The district court

denied Appellant’s motion for severance because Appellant

offered only vague and conclusory statements regarding the

substance of Mrs. McDonnell’s testimony. As we expressed in

Parodi, vague and conclusory statements regarding potential

testimony are not enough to establish the substance of a co-

defendant’s testimony. See 703 F.2d at 780.

Appellant’s motion to sever paints a picture of Mrs.

McDonnell’s potential testimony in broad strokes without filling

in any details:

First, her testimony would disprove the
Government’s primary claim that the
McDonnells acted in concert through a
criminal conspiracy to corruptly accept
gifts and loans in exchange for Mr.
McDonnell using his office to benefit
Williams and his company. Second, her
testimony would refute the Government’s
allegation that Mr. McDonnell agreed or
promised to use his office to improperly
“promote” Star’s products or to “obtain
research studies for Star Scientific’s
products.” Third, Mrs. McDonnell would
refute the Government’s allegation that she
solicited certain gifts and loans identified
in the Indictment. Finally, Mrs. McDonnell
would refute the Government’s allegation
that the McDonnells “took steps . . . to
conceal” their supposed scheme.

J.A. 296 (alternation in original) (citations omitted).

Presented with only these unadorned statements regarding the

substance of Mrs. McDonnell’s potential testimony, the district

25
court appropriately exercised its discretion when it denied the

motion to sever.

2.

Appellant claimed he could provide a more detailed

account of the substance of Mrs. McDonnell’s potential testimony

-- an account he offered to share with the district court on the

condition that the district court review the evidence ex parte.

The district court denied this invitation, finding an ex parte

proceeding would be inappropriate.

Ex parte proceedings and communications are disfavored

because they are “fundamentally at variance with our conceptions

of due process.” Doe v. Hampton, 566 F.2d 265, 276 (D.C. Cir.

1977), quoted in Thompson v. Greene, 427 F.3d 263, 269 n.7 (4th

Cir. 2005). However, such proceedings and communications may be

permissible in limited circumstances. “[O]ur analysis should

focus, first, on the parties’ opportunity to participate in the

court’s decision and, second, on whether the ex parte

proceedings were unfairly prejudicial.” RZS Holdings AVV, 506

F.3d at 357.

Ex parte proceedings were not justified in this case.

Appellant sought to withhold from the Government all of the

information necessary to establish the necessity of severance.

This proposal would have barred the Government from challenging

whether Appellant actually satisfied the initial showing

26
required by Parodi. If the district court proceeded as

Appellant requested, it would have been the only entity in a

position to challenge Appellant’s contentions. The district

court was reluctant to assume the role of an advocate when

evaluating “a motion to sever[, which] requires a fact-

intensive, multi-factored analysis for which there is a

heightened need for well-informed advocacy.” J.A. 351. 10 It

10In United States v. Napue, the Seventh Circuit elaborated
on the problems presented by ex parte communications between a
court and the Government:

Ex parte communications between the
government and the court deprive the
defendant of notice of the precise content
of the communications and an opportunity to
respond. These communications thereby can
create both the appearance of impropriety
and the possibility of actual misconduct.
Even where the government acts in good faith
and diligently attempts to present
information fairly during an ex parte
proceeding, the government’s information is
likely to be less reliable and the court’s
ultimate findings less accurate than if the
defendant had been permitted to participate.
However impartial a prosecutor may mean to
be, he is an advocate, accustomed to stating
only one side of the case. An ex parte
proceeding places a substantial burden upon
the trial judge to perform what is naturally
and properly the function of an advocate.

834 F.2d 1311, 1318–19 (7th Cir. 1987) (emphasis omitted)
(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
reversal of roles in this case does not change the equation.
See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 184 (1969) (“As the
need for adversary inquiry is increased by the complexity of the
issues presented for adjudication, and by the consequent
(Continued)
27
properly exercised its discretion by denying Appellant’s

request.

Appellant also maintains that the district court erred

by failing to defer its ruling on the motion to sever until 14

days prior to trial. The district court was not obligated to

consider this request because Appellant waited until his reply

to argue this issue. Cf. U.S. S.E.C. v. Pirate Investor LLC,

580 F.3d 233, 255 n.23 (4th Cir. 2009) (“Ordinarily we do not

consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply

brief . . . .”); Mike’s Train House, Inc. v. Broadway Ltd.

Imports, LLC, 708 F. Supp. 2d 527, 535 (D. Md. 2010) (applying

this principle to reply memoranda). We are satisfied,

therefore, that the district court did not abuse its discretion

by denying this request outright.

Appellant simply failed to provide adequate

justification for his claim that a severance was warranted. He

was not entitled to an ex parte examination of his evidence; he

was not entitled to deferral of the district court’s ruling.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Appellant’s motion to

sever.

inadequacy of ex parte procedures as a means for their accurate
resolution, the displacement of well-informed advocacy
necessarily becomes less justifiable.” (emphasis omitted)).

28
 B.

Voir Dire

Appellant next argues that the district court failed

to adequately question prospective jurors on the subject of

pretrial publicity. He complains that, during the voir dire

proceedings, the court declined his request for individual

questioning on this topic. Instead, the court polled the

members of the venire as a group, asking whether any of them

believed themselves to be incapable of “put[ting] aside whatever

it is that [they had] heard.” J.A. 1692. The court did call

eight prospective jurors to the bench for one-on-one

questioning, but only after the defense singled them out on the

basis of their responses to a jury selection questionnaire.

Appellant argues that such “perfunctory” questioning violated

his Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury. Appellant’s Br.

65. Because “[t]he conduct of voir dire necessarily is

committed to the sound discretion of the trial court,” United

States v. Lancaster, 96 F.3d 734, 738 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc),

we also review this contention for abuse of discretion, see

United States v. Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 613 (4th Cir. 2010).

Appellant’s argument begins inauspiciously, with an

assertion that the Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v.

United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896 (2010), establishes minimum

requirements for voir dire in “publicity-saturated” cases like

29
this one. Appellant’s Br. 22. In Skilling, he claims, the

Court approved the voir dire procedure “only because” the trial

court asked prospective jurors to indicate whether they had

formed an opinion about the defendant’s guilt or innocence and

later examined them individually about pretrial publicity. Id.

Appellant then reasons that, because the trial court in this

case took neither of those steps, it necessarily “failed to

‘provide a reasonable assurance that prejudice would be

discovered if present.’” Id. (quoting Lancaster, 96 F.3d at

740).

Skilling, however, does not purport to hand down

commandments for the proper conduct of voir dire proceedings.

See 130 S. Ct. at 2918 (explaining that the legal issue under

review was, narrowly, “the adequacy of jury selection in

Skilling’s case” (emphasis supplied)). On the contrary, the

Court in Skilling recommitted itself to the principle that jury

selection is unsusceptible to any “hard-and-fast formula”; as

always, it remains “particularly within the province of the

trial judge.” Id. at 2917 (internal quotation marks omitted);

see also United States v. Wood, 299 U.S. 123, 145-46 (1936)

(stating that procedures for detecting and rooting out juror

bias cannot be “chained to any ancient and artificial formula”).

Trial judges, as we have repeatedly recognized, retain broad

discretion over the conduct of voir dire, see, e.g., United

30
States v. Jeffery, 631 F.3d 669, 673 (4th Cir. 2011), both as a

general matter and in the area of pretrial publicity,

specifically, see, e.g., United States v. Bailey, 112 F.3d 758,

770 (4th Cir. 1997); United States v. Bakker, 925 F.2d 728, 733-

34 (4th Cir. 1991). The Supreme Court has itself emphasized the

“wide discretion” that trial courts enjoy in questioning

prospective jurors about pretrial publicity:

Particularly with respect to pretrial
publicity, we think this primary reliance on
the judgment of the trial court makes good
sense. The judge of that court sits in the
locale where the publicity is said to have
had its effect and brings to his evaluation
of any such claim his own perception of the
depth and extent of news stories that might
influence a juror. The trial court, of
course, does not impute his own perceptions
to the jurors who are being examined, but
these perceptions should be of assistance to
it in deciding how detailed an inquiry to
make of the members of the jury venire.

Mu’Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 427 (1991).

In his opening brief, Appellant accuses the district

court of “limit[ing] voir dire on this issue to asking the

prospective jurors en masse to sit down if they felt they could

be fair.” Appellant’s Br. 65. The court, though, did a good

deal more than that.

Jury selection in this case commenced with a court-

approved jury questionnaire spanning 99 questions, four of which

pressed prospective jurors for information about their exposure

31
to pretrial publicity. 11 The questionnaire -- by and large, a

condensed version of a slightly longer proposed questionnaire

that the parties submitted jointly -- asked respondents to state

whether they had “seen, heard or read anything” about the case;

“[h]ow closely” they had followed news about the case; and from

which types of media they had heard about it. J.A. 592-93. It

then asked whether each respondent had “expressed an opinion

about this case or about those involved to anyone,” and if so,

to elaborate on both “the circumstances” and the opinion

expressed. Id. at 593.

Appellant makes much of the fact that the jury

questionnaire merely asked whether prospective jurors had

“expressed” an opinion about the case, rather than whether they

had formed an opinion about it. Appellant, however, bears much

of the responsibility for the wording and scope of questions on

that document. And while the jointly proposed jury

questionnaire from which the final questionnaire was culled did,

indeed, ask whether prospective jurors had “formed” an opinion

about the case, the wording of this proposed question was

suspect. It asked: “Based on what you have read, heard, seen,

11
Another section of the questionnaire asked prospective
jurors to discuss their news consumption more generally.
Respondents were instructed to list, among other things, the
print and online news sources they read most often and any
websites they visit regularly.

32
and/or overheard in conversations, please tell us what opinions,

if any, you have formed about the guilt or innocence of Robert

F. McDonnell.” J.A. 527. So worded, this question invites

respondents to deliberate on the defendant’s guilt or innocence

and to stake out a position before even a single juror has been

seated. The court was justified in rejecting it. 12

Later, the court did exercise its discretion to

question the prospective jurors as a group, instead of

individually, on the subject of pretrial publicity. See Bakker,

925 F.2d at 734 (“[I]t is well established that a trial judge

may question prospective jurors collectively rather than

individually.”). During this portion of the in-court voir dire,

the court asked the members of the venire, collectively, to

stand up if they had read, heard, or seen any media reports

about the case. The court then asked the prospective jurors to

12Indeed, the court’s decision not to pose Appellant’s
suggested question finds support in the Supreme Court’s guidance
on matters of pretrial publicity. See Mu’Min, 500 U.S. at 430
(explaining that the question for voir dire is “whether the
jurors . . . had such fixed opinions that they could not judge
impartially the guilt of the defendant” (alteration in original)
(emphasis supplied) (internal quotation marks omitted)); Irvin
v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723 (1961) (“To hold that the mere
existence of any preconceived notion as to the guilt or
innocence of an accused, without more, is sufficient to rebut
the presumption of a prospective juror’s impartiality would be
to establish an impossible standard. It is sufficient if the
juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a
verdict based on the evidence presented in court.”).

33
sit down if, despite this, they believed they were “able to put

aside whatever it is that [they] heard, listen to the evidence

in this case and be fair to both sides.” J.A. 1691-92. Even

still, the court invited defense counsel to identify any

specific veniremen it would like to question further on this

subject. In response, Appellant’s counsel brought forward the

names of eight prospective jurors, and the court proceeded to

summon each of those prospective jurors to the bench for

individual questioning. The court struck one of these

individuals, without objection, based on her responses to its

questions. When this process was complete, the court asked

Appellant’s counsel whether there was “[a]nybody else” he wished

to question. J.A. 1706. “Not on publicity,” counsel said. Id.

Appellant, relying on our decision in United States v.

Hankish, 502 F.2d 71 (4th Cir. 1974), argues that the

prospective jurors’ acknowledgment that they had been exposed to

pretrial publicity obligated the trial court to question every

single one of them -- not merely one at a time, but outside of

the others’ presence. See Appellant’s Br. 65. Hankish,

however, is inapplicable. The error in that case was a district

court’s refusal to poll jurors, after they had already been

seated, to discern whether any of them had read a particular,

“highly prejudicial” article that ran in the local newspaper on

the second day of the trial. 502 F.2d at 76. We did not hold

34
then, and have not held since, that individual questioning, out

of earshot of the rest of the venire, is required to alleviate

generalized concerns about the pernicious effects of pretrial

publicity. On the contrary, we have held that merely asking for

a show of hands was not an abuse of discretion. See Bailey, 112

F.3d at 769-70 (finding no abuse of discretion where a court

asked prospective jurors to raise their hands if they had heard

or read about the case and, separately, if “anything they had

heard would predispose them to favor one side or the other”).

We are satisfied that the trial court’s questioning in

this case was adequate to “provide a reasonable assurance that

prejudice would be discovered if present.” Lancaster, 96 F.3d

at 740 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United

States v. Hsu, 364 F.3d 192, 203-04 (4th Cir. 2004). And

Appellant does not contend that any actual juror bias has been

discovered. We conclude, therefore, that the court did not

abuse its discretion.

C.

Evidentiary Rulings

Appellant asserts the district court made multiple

erroneous evidentiary rulings. In general, we review

evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion, affording

substantial deference to the district court. See United States

v. Medford, 661 F.3d 746, 751 (4th Cir. 2011). “A district

35
court abuses its discretion if its conclusion is guided by

erroneous legal principles or rests upon a clearly erroneous

factual finding.” Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB, 178 F.3d 257,

261 (4th Cir. 1999) (citations omitted). Reversal is

appropriate if we have “a definite and firm conviction that the

court below committed a clear error of judgment in the

conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

1.

Exclusion of Expert Testimony

Appellant objects to the exclusion of his proposed

expert testimony about Williams’s cooperation agreement with the

Government as well as expert testimony about the Statements of

Economic Interest. We reject these claims, as the trial court’s

decisions to exclude this evidence were not abuses of

discretion.

a.

First, Appellant argues that he should have been

permitted to present expert testimony about Williams’s

cooperation agreement with the Government, which provided

Williams with transactional immunity. In a letter dated May 30,

2014, the Government outlined the immunized conduct:

(1) conduct involving his agreement to
provide, and his provision of, things of
value to former Virginia Governor Robert F.

36
 McDonnell, former First Lady of Virginia
Maureen P. McDonnell, and their family
members; (2) conduct related to loans
Williams received from 2009 to 2012 in
exchange for his pledge of Star Scientific
stock; and (3) conduct related to Williams’
gifts of Star Scientific stock to certain
trusts from 2009 to 2012.

J.A. 7918. Appellant offered the expert testimony of Peter

White -- a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP and former

Assistant United States Attorney -- to “explain[] transactional

immunity, its value, and its uniqueness” and to “help[] the jury

understand Williams’s deal so it could assess his credibility.”

Appellant’s Br. 78.

Expert testimony cannot be used for the sole purpose

of undermining a witness’s credibility. See United States v.

Allen, 716 F.3d 98, 105–06 (4th Cir. 2013). Here, the defense

wished to present White’s testimony in order to emphasize the

rarity of Williams’s agreement and to imply, as a result, that

Williams had more reason to provide false or greatly exaggerated

testimony. In other words, the sole purpose of White’s

testimony was to undermine Williams’s credibility. This is a

matter best left to cross examination. Accordingly, we cannot

conclude that the district court’s decision to exclude this

evidence was an abuse of discretion. See Allen, 716 F.3d at 106

(“A juror can connect the dots and understand the implications

that a plea agreement might have on a codefendant’s testimony --

37
it is certainly within the realm of common sense that certain

witnesses would have an incentive to incriminate the defendant

in exchange for a lower sentence.” (internal quotation marks

omitted)). 13

b.

Second, Appellant argues that he should have been

permitted to present expert testimony about the Statements of

Economic Interest. Appellant offered the expert testimony of

Norman A. Thomas -- a private attorney who formerly worked in

13Appellant also contests the exclusion of his proposed lay
witness testimony about the rarity of Williams’s agreement. At
trial, the court sustained the Government’s objection after
defense counsel asked Williams whether he understood “how
unusual it is . . . to get transactional immunity” and again
after defense counsel asked an FBI special agent whether he had
“ever seen a cooperating witness get the kind of deal that Mr.
Williams got.” J.A. 2778, 5064. Appellant claims this
testimony would have helped the jury assess Williams’s
credibility. In relevant part, Rule 701 of the Federal Rules of
Evidence requires that opinion testimony from a lay witness must
be “helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony.”
Fed. R. Evid. 701(b); see also United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d
104, 136 (4th Cir. 2014) (“Lay opinion testimony is particularly
useful when . . . the terms and concepts being discussed . . .
are likely to be unfamiliar to the jury.”). Juries are familiar
with the general import and effect of immunity agreements. Cf.
Allen, 716 F.3d at 106 (discussing jurors’ ability to understand
the implications of a plea agreement). Here, the jury was
informed of the contents of Williams’s agreement, and Williams
testified about the agreement and his understanding of the
immunities from prosecution it afforded him. The jury did not
need additional testimony regarding what types of agreements are
more common than others to assess Williams’s credibility. In
other words, the district court reasonably concluded that the
testimony would not have been helpful.

38
the Office of the Attorney General of Virginia and served as a

judge -- to explain the vagueness and complexity of the

Statements of Economic Interest. According to Appellant, Thomas

also would have explained that Appellant’s Statements of

Economic Interest evidenced a reasonable understanding of the

disclosure requirements.

Expert testimony must “help the trier of fact to

understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Fed.

R. Evid. 702(a). “The helpfulness requirement of Rule 702 thus

prohibits the use of expert testimony related to matters which

are obviously . . . within the common knowledge of jurors.”

United States v. Lespier, 725 F.3d 437, 449 (4th Cir. 2013)

(alteration in original) (internal quotations marks omitted).

The district court excluded the testimony of Thomas

because it would not be helpful to the jury. As the court

observed, the jurors were “capable of reading and assessing the

complexity of the [Statements] for themselves.” J.A. 719.

Generally speaking, one does not need any special skills or

expertise to recognize that something is complex. Accordingly,

this matter was plainly within the common knowledge of the

jurors. Similarly, the jurors did not need expert assistance to

assess the reasonableness of Appellant’s opinions about what he

did and did not have to disclose. The district court reasonably

concluded that Thomas’s testimony would not have been helpful.

39
As a result, we cannot conclude that the district court’s

decision to exclude this evidence was an abuse of discretion.

2.

Admission of Statements of Economic Interest

Appellant objects to the admission of the Statements

of Economic Interest filed by Appellant during his time in

office. Appellant moved in limine to exclude evidence relating

to the Statements of Economic Interest, arguing the Statements

of Economic Interest would have little to no probative value and

their admission would confuse the issues and mislead the jury.

The Government, on the other hand, characterized the

Statements of Economic Interest and related evidence as

concealment evidence, which would reveal Appellant’s “corrupt

intent and consciousness of guilt.” J.A. 723. In support of

this proposition, the Government offered four examples of how

the Statements of Economic Interest amounted to concealment

evidence:

[F]irst, because of [Appellant’s] deliberate
omission of his golf-related gifts paid by
Jonnie Williams; second, because of
[Appellant’s] deliberate omission of the
$15,000 check from Mr. Williams to pay the
remainder of the catering bill the
McDonnells owed for their daughter’s
wedding; third, as the reason why Mrs.
McDonnell sold and repurchased all Star
stock held in her account on dates flanking
the due date for [Appellant’s] 2011
[Statement of Economic Interest], and why
the next year, she similarly unloaded Star

40
 stock to [Appellant’s] children on December
26, 2012, such that less than $10,000 worth
of Star stock remained in her account at
year-end; and fourth, as the reason why
[Appellant] had Mr. Williams direct $70,000
in loan proceeds to [Mobo].

Id. at 723–24 (citations omitted).

Evidence is relevant if “it has any tendency to make a

fact more or less probable than it would be without the

evidence” and “the fact is of consequence in determining the

action.” Fed. R. Evid. 401(a)–(b). Relevant evidence may be

excluded “if its probative value is substantially outweighed by

a danger of . . . unfair prejudice, confusing the issues,

misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly

presenting cumulative evidence.” Id. 403.

The district court admitted the Statements of Economic

Interest because they were relevant “to concealment and may be

probative of intent to defraud” and because “admission . . .

will not unfairly prejudice [Appellant] because there is no

suggestion, and there will be none at trial, that [Appellant]

violated Virginia’s ethics laws or reporting requirements.”

J.A. 760. Indeed, an attempt to conceal actions may indicate an

individual has a guilty conscience or is aware of the

unlawfulness of the actions. See United States v. Zayyad, 741

F.3d 452, 463 (4th Cir. 2014). Because the Statements of

Economic Interest did not include various gifts, stock

41
transactions, and loans from Williams to Appellant -- omissions

Appellant sought to explain during trial 14 -- the structuring of

the loans and gifts and failures to report could be seen as

efforts to conceal Appellant’s dealings with Williams. The

district court correctly observed as much. And the district

court weighed the probative value of this evidence against any

dangers that would accompanying its admission. Accordingly, we

cannot conclude that the district court’s decision to admit this

evidence was an abuse of discretion.

3.

Admission of Other Gifts Evidence

Appellant objects to the admission of evidence that he

accepted a gift of the Kiawah vacation from Goodwin and that he

14 Appellant testified that he should have reported -- but
did not report -- golf outings provided by Williams in 2011. He
did not report Williams’s $15,000 check for catering at
Appellant’s daughter’s wedding, characterizing the check as a
wedding gift to his daughter. Appellant instructed Williams to
write loan checks to Mobo, circumventing disclosure
requirements. In both 2011 and 2012, Mrs. McDonnell unloaded
shares of Star stock prior to the filing dates for the
Statements of Economic Interest so her ownership did not have to
be reported. But after the 2011 Statement of Economic Interest
was filed, Mrs. McDonnell repurchased shares of Star stock.
Appellant testified that “it was not a big deal” if he had to
report ownership of Star stock. J.A. 6276. He claimed that he
encouraged his wife to sell the stock in 2011 because it was a
risky investment. He also claimed that Mrs. McDonnell
repurchased and again transferred Star stock in 2012 because she
wanted to give the stock to their children as a Christmas
present.

42
did not disclose this gift pursuant to the “personal friend”

exception to Virginia’s reporting requirements. Appellant moved

in limine to exclude this evidence as extrinsic evidence of

unrelated alleged acts with no probative value of his intent.

The Government responded that this evidence showed Appellant’s

knowledge of the “personal friend” exception to reporting

requirements. This evidence, the Government further noted,

would be “competent evidence of absence of mistake or lack of

accident when it comes to assessing [Appellant’s] intent in

failing to disclose the gifts and loans from Mr. Williams.”

J.A. 731.

As a general rule, “[e]vidence of a crime, wrong, or

other act is not admissible to prove a person’s character in

order to show that on a particular occasion the person acted in

accordance with the character.” Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(1).

However, such evidence “may be admissible for another purpose,

such as proving motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan,

knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident.”

Id. 404(b)(2).

The district court admitted the evidence of the Kiawah

vacation omission because it was used to show knowledge and lack

of mistake. The omission of the gift from Goodwin, the district

court determined, “is similar to the act the Government seeks to

prove -- omission of gifts from Williams pursuant to the

43
personal friend exception.” J.A. 761. This evidence

established that Appellant knew about the “personal friend”

exception and omitted certain gifts pursuant to this exception.

Thus, Appellant’s knowledge and the absence of mistake was

“relevant to, and probative of, his alleged intent to defraud.”

Id. Rule 404 permits the admission of evidence of intent and

knowledge, and in our view, the district court could conclude

that the Goodwin evidence was admissible for these purposes.

Therefore, we cannot conclude that the district court’s decision

to admit this evidence was an abuse of discretion.

4.

Admission of Email Exchange Regarding Free Golf

Appellant objects to the admission of an email

exchange about obtaining free rounds of golf. On January 4,

2013, Emily Rabbitt -- Appellant’s travel aide and deputy

director of scheduling -- asked Adam Zubowsky for advice about

planning golf trips for Appellant. Zubowsky -- once Appellant’s

travel aide and later Appellant’s son-in-law -- responded in an

email dated January 4, 2013:

Yes basically this means find out who we
know in these cities, that owns golf courses
and will let me and my family play for free,
or at a reduced cost. Also finding out
where to stay for free / or reduced cost.
So this means . . . find out about pac
donors, and rga donors, who will host rfm.

J.A. 7921.

44
 During trial, Appellant objected to the admission of

this email, asserting that this evidence was not relevant and

was extraordinarily prejudicial. In post-trial motions and on

appeal, however, Appellant has claimed the exchange was

inadmissible hearsay and inadmissible character evidence.

Because Appellant did not object at trial on these grounds, our

review is for plain error. See United States v. Bennett, 698

F.3d 194, 200 (4th Cir. 2012).

On plain error review, an appellant “bears the burden

of establishing (1) that the district court erred; (2) that the

error was plain; and (3) that the error affect[ed his]

substantial rights.” Bennett, 698 F.3d at 200 (alteration in

original) (internal quotation marks omitted). An error affects

an individual’s substantial rights if it was prejudicial, “which

means that there must be a reasonable probability that the error

affected the outcome of the trial.” United States v. Marcus,

130 S. Ct. 2159, 2164 (2010). The mere possibility that the

error affected the outcome of the trial does not establish

prejudice. See id. “Even then, this court retain[s] discretion

to deny relief, and denial is particularly warranted where it

would not result in a miscarriage of justice.” Bennett, 698

F.3d at 200 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks

omitted).

45
 At first, the district court refused to permit

discussion of the particular email exchange when it was

mentioned during the testimony of Rabbitt. Later in the trial,

during cross examination of Appellant, the email exchange was

admitted over Appellant’s relevancy objection. The discussion

of the exchange focused on whether Appellant received

information about golf courses where he could play for free or

at a reduced cost. Upon review of the record, it does not

appear that this exchange was mentioned again, and the parties

have not identified any other discussion of the exchange.

The use of the email exchange was quite limited,

especially in light of the voluminous evidence presented during

the course of the five weeks of trial. We cannot say there is a

reasonable probability that its admission affected the outcome

of the trial. The indictment, we note, did not seek to

prosecute Appellant for this conduct; indeed, the district court

instructed the jury that Appellant was “not on trial for any act

or conduct or offense not alleged in the indictment.” J.A.

7695. We presume the jurors followed the district court’s

instruction. See, e.g., Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U.S. 225, 234

(2000). Accordingly, the claim that evidence of the email

exchange affected the outcome of the trial is beyond the realm

of reasonable probability. The admission of this evidence was

not plainly erroneous.

46
 5.

Return of Forensic Image of Williams’s iPhone

Appellant also asserts the district court erroneously

ordered him to return all copies of a forensic image of

Williams’s iPhone, which the Government had produced to

Appellant pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure. Appellant’s chief complaint is that the forensic

image may contain evidence to which he is entitled pursuant to

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United

States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972).

However, Appellant waives this claim because his

treatment of it is conclusory. Appellant merely argues: “If

[Appellant] receives a new trial, he is entitled to this

evidence, which almost certainly contains Brady and Giglio

material. Likewise, if any of that evidence proves material,

its confiscation requires a new trial.” Appellant’s Br. 85

(citations omitted). Appellant’s argument includes bare

citations to two decisions of little obvious relevance from

other courts of appeals. Furthermore, Appellant does not make

any effort to establish the elements of a Brady or Giglio

violation. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 281–82 (1999)

(“The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either

because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that

47
evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either

willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.”).

Summary treatment of a claim does not sufficiently

raise the claim. See, e.g., Russell v. Absolute Collection

Servs., Inc., 763 F.3d 385, 396 n.* (4th Cir. 2014) (noting that

failure to present legal arguments and “record citations or

pertinent legal authority supporting . . . a claim” waives the

claim). Although Appellant raised this issue in an

interlocutory appeal in a related case -- an appeal we dismissed

for want of jurisdiction -- this does not preserve the issue and

is not sufficient to raise the issue now. To avoid waiver, a

party must brief the issue in an appeal over which we may

exercise jurisdiction. Thus, because Appellant fails to

sufficiently raise this issue and has, therefore, effectively

waived it, we do not further address it.

III.

With these matters resolved, we turn to the two

arguments at the core of this appeal. First and foremost,

Appellant asserts that the district court’s jury instructions

misstated fundamental principles of federal bribery law.

Second, he asserts that the Government’s evidence was

insufficient to support his convictions pursuant to the honest-

services wire fraud statute and the Hobbs Act. We address each

of these contentions in turn.

48
 A.

Jury Instructions

Appellant’s claim with respect to the jury

instructions is that the court defined bribery far too

expansively. “We review de novo the claim that a jury

instruction failed to correctly state the applicable law.”

United States v. Jefferson, 674 F.3d 332, 351 (4th Cir. 2012).

“[W]e do not view a single instruction in isolation, but instead

consider whether taken as a whole and in the context of the

entire charge, the instructions accurately and fairly state the

controlling law.” United States v. Woods, 710 F.3d 195, 207

(4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if,

upon review, we find that the court misinstructed the jury on an

element of an offense, we may disregard the error as harmless.

See United States v. Cloud, 680 F.3d 396, 408 n.5 (4th Cir.

2012); United States v. Ramos-Cruz, 667 F.3d 487, 496 (4th Cir.

2012). “We find an error in instructing the jury harmless if it

is ‘clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would

have found the defendant guilty absent the error.’” 15 Ramos-

15 Prior to closing arguments in this case, the trial court
conducted a lengthy charge conference, during which Appellant’s
counsel vigorously challenged many of the Government’s proposed
instructions, including instructions that the court ultimately
gave. The court did not invite the parties to object to the
instructions after the court gave them to the jury -- nor did
either party request to do so. We remind the district courts
(Continued)
49
Cruz, 667 F.3d at 496 (quoting Neder v. United States, 527 U.S.

1, 18 (1999)).

1.

We begin our analysis with an examination of the

statutes of conviction. The first of these is the honest-

services wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1346. 16 This

statute requires the Government to prove that the defendant

sought to “carry out a ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ another

of ‘the intangible right of honest services.’” United States v.

Terry, 707 F.3d 607, 611 (6th Cir. 2013) (citations omitted)

(quoting 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346). The Supreme Court has

and counsel that the proper time for cementing objections to
instructions is after they are given but “before the jury
retires to deliberate.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 30(d); see United
States v. Taglianetti, 456 F.2d 1055, 1056-57 (1st Cir. 1972)
(rejecting the “improper practice” of taking objections to the
jury charge “in chambers before delivery, rather than
afterwards”).
16 The wire fraud statute provides, in pertinent part:

Whoever, having devised or intending to
devise any scheme or artifice to
defraud, . . . transmits or causes to
be transmitted by means of wire . . .
communication in interstate or foreign
commerce, any writings, signs, signals,
pictures, or sounds for the purpose of
executing such scheme or artifice, shall be
fined . . . or imprisoned . . . or both.

18 U.S.C. § 1343. “[T]he term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’
includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the
intangible right of honest services.” Id. § 1346.

50
recognized that § 1346 proscribes two, and only two, types of

activities: bribery and kickback schemes. See Skilling v.

United States, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2907 (2010). To the extent that

the statute prohibits acts of bribery, the prohibition “draws

content . . . from federal statutes proscribing -- and defining

-- similar crimes,” including the general federal bribery

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b), and the statute prohibiting theft

and bribery involving federal funds, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(2).

Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2933.

Here, in their proposed instructions for honest-

services wire fraud, both parties sought to import the

definition of bribery set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). This

statute provides that public officials may not “corruptly”

demand, seek, or receive anything of value “in return

for . . . being influenced in the performance of any official

act.” 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). The statute defines an “official

act” as “any decision or action on any question, matter, cause,

suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be

pending, or which may by law be brought before any public

official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such

official’s place of trust or profit.” Id. § 201(a)(3). The

district court provided a near-verbatim recitation of these

provisions in its honest-services wire fraud instructions.

51
 A second statute of conviction in Appellant’s case,

the Hobbs Act, prohibits acts of extortion which “in any way or

degree obstruct[], delay[], or affect[] commerce or the movement

of any article or commodity in commerce.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).

Though a defendant may commit extortion through threats or

violence, it is also possible to commit extortion by obtaining

property “under color of official right.” Id. § 1951(b)(2). In

Evans v. United States, the Supreme Court explained that its

construction of § 1951 “is informed by the common-law

tradition,” under which “[e]xtortion by [a] public official was

the rough equivalent of what we would now describe as ‘taking a

bribe.’” 504 U.S. 255, 260, 268 (1992). Accordingly, we have

concluded that prosecutions for extortion under color of

official right, like prosecutions under other bribery-related

statutes, require proof of a quid pro quo. See United States v.

Hairston, 46 F.3d 361, 365 (4th Cir. 1995).

Here, the parties agreed that a charge of extortion

under color of official right has four elements. The trial

court accordingly instructed the jury that the Government must

prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) was a

public official; (2) “obtained a thing of value not due him or

his [office]”; (3) “did so knowing that the thing of value was

given in return for official action”; and (4) “did or attempted

52
in any way or degree to delay, obstruct, or affect interstate

commerce, or an item moving in interstate commerce.” J.A. 7681.

2.

Official Acts

Appellant first challenges the district court’s

instructions on the meaning of “official act,” or,

alternatively, “official action.” Appellant argues the court’s

definition was overbroad, to the point that it would seem to

encompass virtually any action a public official might take

while in office.

In its instructions on honest-services wire fraud, the

district court defined “official action”:

The term official action means any decision
or action on any question, matter, cause,
suit, proceeding, or controversy, which may
at any time be pending, or which may by law
be brought before any public official, in
such public official’s official capacity.
Official action as I just defined it
includes those actions that have been
clearly established by settled practice as
part of a public official’s position, even
if the action was not taken pursuant to
responsibilities explicitly assigned by law.
In other words, official actions may include
acts that a public official customarily
performs, even if those actions are not
described in any law, rule, or job
description. And a public official need not
have actual or final authority over the end
result sought by a bribe payor so long as
the alleged bribe payor reasonably believes
that the public official had influence,
power or authority over a means to the end
sought by the bribe payor. In addition,

53
 official action can include actions taken in
furtherance of longer-term goals, and an
official action is no less official because
it is one in a series of steps to exercise
influence or achieve an end.

J.A. 7671-72. The court later explained to the jury that these

instructions “apply equally to the definition of official action

for the purposes of” the Hobbs Act counts. Id. at 7683.

In broad strokes, Appellant’s argument is that the

court’s definition of “official action” is overinclusive. By

his account, the court’s instructions would deem virtually all

of a public servant’s activities “official,” no matter how minor

or innocuous. For public figures such as a governor, who

interact with constituents, donors, and business leaders as a

matter of custom and necessity, these activities might include

such routine functions as attending a luncheon, arranging a

meeting, or posing for a photograph. Appellant argues that

activities of this nature can never constitute an official act.

See Appellant’s Br. 28.

We have recognized that the term “official act” “does

not encompass every action taken in one’s official capacity.”

Jefferson, 674 F.3d at 356. Its meaning is more limited than

that. We are satisfied, though, that the district court

adequately delineated those limits when it informed the jury

that the term “official act” covers only “decision[s] or

action[s] on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or

54
controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by

law be brought before any public official, in such public

official’s official capacity.” J.A. 7671 (paraphrasing 18

U.S.C. § 201(a)(3)).

a.

The Supreme Court has twice expounded on the meaning

of “official act.” It first did so a little more than a century

ago, in United States v. Birdsall, 233 U.S. 223 (1914). There,

two federal officers responsible for suppressing liquor traffic

in Indian communities challenged their indictments for accepting

bribes in violation of section 117 of the Criminal Code, the

predecessor statute to 18 U.S.C. § 201(b). 17 See Birdsall, 233

17 Section 117 provided:

Whoever, being an officer of the United
States, or a person acting for or on behalf
of the United States, in any official
capacity, under or by virtue of the
authority of any department or office of the
Government thereof[,] . . . shall ask,
accept, or receive any money, . . . with
intent to have his decision or action on any
question, matter, cause, or proceeding which
may at any time be pending, or which may by
law be brought before him in his official
capacity, or in his place of trust or
profit, influenced thereby, shall be
[penalized by fine, imprisonment, and
disqualification from office].

Act of March 4, 1909, ch. 321, § 117, 35 Stat. 1088, 1109-10.
We have observed that “there is simply no distinction in
substance between an official act as defined by Birdsall” and an
(Continued)
55
U.S. at 227. The indictments alleged that attorney Birdsall

bribed the officers to advise the Commissioner of Indian Affairs

to recommend leniency for individuals convicted of liquor

trafficking offenses involving Indians. See id. at 229-30. The

district court sustained the officers’ demurrers, holding that

their actions were not within the scope of the bribery statute

because “there [was] no act of Congress conferring upon the

Interior Department, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs, any duty

whatever in regard to recommending to the executive or judicial

departments of the government whether or not executive or

judicial clemency shall be extended.” United States v.

Birdsall, 206 F. 818, 821 (N.D. Iowa 1913), rev’d, 233 U.S. 223

(1914). The Supreme Court, however, reversed. In doing so, it

declared that an action may be “official” for purposes of a

bribery charge even if it is not prescribed by statute, written

rule, or regulation. See Birdsall, 233 U.S. at 230-31. Indeed,

as the Court explained, an official act:

might also be found in an established usage
which constituted the common law of the
department and fixed the duties of those
engaged in its activities. In numerous
instances, duties not completely defined by
written rules are clearly established by
settled practice, and action taken in the

“official act” under the current bribery statute, 18 U.S.C.
§ 201(a)(3). Jefferson, 674 F.3d at 353.

56
 course of their performance must be regarded
as within the provisions of the above-
mentioned statutes against bribery.

Id. at 231 (citation omitted).

Birdsall continues to stand for the proposition that

an “official act” “may include acts that a [public servant]

customarily performs, even if the act falls outside the formal

legislative process.” Jefferson, 674 F.3d at 357; see also

United States v. Morlang, 531 F.2d 183, 192 (4th Cir. 1975).

Importantly, though, Birdsall did not rule, and we have never

held, that every act an official performs as a matter of custom

is an “official act.” To constitute an “official act” under

federal bribery law, a settled practice “must yet adhere to the

definition confining an official act to a pending ‘question,

matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.’” Jefferson,

674 F.3d at 356 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3)).

By way of dicta in United States v. Sun-Diamond

Growers of California, 526 U.S. 398 (1999), the Supreme Court

has clarified this point. Sun-Diamond, it must be noted, was

not a bribery case. Its focus, rather, was the federal gratuity

statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(c), which criminalizes gifts given to a

public official “for or because of any official act.” 18 U.S.C.

§ 201(c)(1)(A). Notably, though, the definition of an “official

act” supplied in § 201(a)(3) applies to the entirety of § 201,

including the dual prohibitions on bribery and illegal

57
gratuities. See 18 U.S.C. § 201(a) (providing a definition of

“official act” “[f]or the purpose of this section”).

The Sun-Diamond Court explained that the illegal

gratuity statute requires the Government to demonstrate a link

between the gift and “some particular official act of whatever

identity.” 526 U.S. at 406 (internal quotation marks omitted).

In the course of its explanation, the Court stated that an

alternative reading would criminalize, for example, “token gifts

to the President based on his official position and not linked

to any identifiable act -- such as the replica jerseys given by

championship sports teams each year during ceremonial White

House visits”; “a high school principal’s gift of a school

baseball cap to the Secretary of Education, by reason of his

office, on the occasion of the latter’s visit to the school”; or

a “complimentary lunch” provided for the Secretary of

Agriculture “in connection with his speech to the farmers

concerning various matters of USDA policy.” Id. at 406-07. The

Court proceeded to explain why it would not do to argue that

these three acts -- that is, receiving the sports teams,

visiting the high school, or speaking to farmers -- were

“official acts” in their own right:

The answer to this objection is that those
actions -- while they are assuredly
“official acts” in some sense -- are not
“official acts” within the meaning of the
statute, which, as we have noted, defines

58
 “official act” to mean “any decision or
action on any question, matter, cause, suit,
proceeding or controversy, which may at any
time be pending, or which may by law be
brought before any public official, in such
official’s official capacity, or in such
official’s place of trust or profit.” 18
U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). Thus, when the
violation is linked to a particular
“official act,” it is possible to eliminate
the absurdities through the definition of
that term.

Id. at 407-08 (emphasis omitted).

We have previously declined to read Sun-Diamond to

exclude “all settled practices by a public official from the

bribery statute’s definition of an official act.” Jefferson,

674 F.3d at 356 (emphasis supplied). Appellant concedes the

point, acknowledging that “some settled practices can be

official acts.” Appellant’s Br. 37 (emphasis omitted). He

argues, though, that under the logic of Sun-Diamond, the kinds

of activities he is accused of -- e.g., speaking with aides and

arranging meetings -- can never constitute “official acts”

because they “implicate no official power.” 18 Id. at 31

(emphasis omitted). Appellant simply misreads Sun-Diamond.

18In further support of his argument that an “official act”
necessitates a deployment of “official powers,” Appellant calls
our attention to the First Circuit’s decision in United States
v. Urciuoli, 513 F.3d 290 (1st Cir. 2008). The appellants in
Urciuoli were hospital executives who allegedly employed a state
senator in a “sham job” in exchange for various efforts to
advance the hospital’s financial interests. 513 F.3d at 292.
In pertinent part, the Government alleged that the senator
(Continued)
59
 The Sun-Diamond Court did not rule that receptions,

public appearances, and speeches can never constitute “official

acts” within the meaning of § 201(a)(3); the Court’s point was

that job functions of a strictly ceremonial or educational

nature will rarely, if ever, fall within this definition. The

reason is not that these functions cannot relate, in some way,

lobbied municipal officials to comply with Rhode Island law
governing ambulance runs. See id. As a result of this act,
among various other actions, the executives were convicted of
honest-services mail fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and
1346. See id. at 293.

There, as in this case, the chief issue on appeal was
whether the court’s instructions were overbroad. It must be
noted, though, that the instructions in that case were decidedly
different than the instructions here. Instead of borrowing the
bribery definition from § 201(a)(3), as the court here did, the
trial court in Urciuoli instructed the jury to decide whether
the object of the scheme was a deprivation of “honest services,”
defined as follows:

The honest services that an elected official
owes to citizens is not limited to the
official’s formal votes on legislation. It
includes the official’s behind-the-scenes
activities and influence in the legislation,
and it also includes other actions that the
official takes in an official capacity, not
what he does as a private individual but
what he does under the cloak of his office.

Urciuoli, 513 F.3d at 295 n.2 (internal quotation marks
omitted). The First Circuit ruled that the phrase “under the
cloak of his office” was overbroad under the circumstances
because lobbying mayors to obey state law cannot constitute a
deprivation of honest services. See id. at 295. While
Appellant reads Urciuoli to proclaim that acts like lobbying can
never be official acts, the First Circuit made no such
pronouncement.

60
to a “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy.”

18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). Frequently, they will. When, as in the

Court's example, the Secretary of Education visits a local high

school, he may proceed to discuss matters of education policy

with the student body. Surely, though, this discussion does not

have the purpose or effect of exerting some influence on those

policies. Its function, rather, is to educate an audience of

students. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the

Secretary’s visit is a “‘decision or action on’” the question,

matter, cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy. Sun-Diamond,

526 U.S. at 407 (emphasis supplied) (quoting 18 U.S.C.

§ 201(a)(3)).

In view of these precedents, we are satisfied that the

reach of § 201(a)(3) is broad enough to encompass the customary

and settled practices of an office, but only insofar as a

purpose or effect of those practices is to influence a

“question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy” that

may be brought before the government. 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3).

It is with this principle in mind that we assess Appellant’s

contentions about the jury instructions in this case. 19

19Appellant invokes a number of canons of statutory
interpretation that favor a narrow construction of “official
act.” As for his argument that the bribery laws should be void
for vagueness, the Supreme Court has already rejected a
challenge that the honest-services statute is unconstitutionally
(Continued)
61
 b.

Appellant accuses the district court of giving the

jury an “unprecedented and misleading” instruction on the

“official act” element. Appellant’s Br. 51. We disagree with

these characterizations. First, the court’s instruction was not

unprecedented. To a large extent, the instruction echoed the

“official act” instruction in United States v. Jefferson. 20

Second, the instruction here was not misleading. The court

correctly stated, consistent with Birdsall, that the term

“official action” “includes those actions that have been clearly

established by settled practice as part of a public official’s

position, even if the action was not taken pursuant to

responsibilities explicitly assigned by law.” J.A. 7671-72.

vague as applied to bribery. See Skilling, 130 S. Ct. at 2928.
And because Appellant has “engage[d] in some conduct that is
clearly proscribed” by the Hobbs Act, he “cannot complain of the
vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.”
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 18-19 (2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). Appellant’s remaining
narrowing arguments -- which invoke federalism concerns, the
rule of lenity, and dicta in Sun-Diamond -- all presuppose
inherent ambiguity in the statutory term “official act.”
However, as we have explained, the term is sufficiently definite
as to make recourse to those canons unnecessary.
20
In Jefferson, we held that the following jury instruction
was not erroneous: “An act may be official even if it was not
taken pursuant to responsibilities explicitly assigned by law.
Rather, official acts include those activities that have been
clearly established by settled practice as part of a public
official’s position.” 674 F.3d at 353 (alteration omitted).

62
The court then explained that the meaning of “official action”

is tethered to decisions or actions on a “question, matter,

cause, suit, proceeding, or controversy” that may come before

the government. See id. at 7671.

i.

Appellant takes issue with the court’s instruction

that an official action “‘can include actions taken in

furtherance of longer-term goals.’” Appellant’s Br. 56 (quoting

J.A. 7672). He argues that this instruction is too sweeping, as

“virtually anything could be in ‘furtherance’ of some goal.”

Id. For similar reasons, Appellant challenges the court’s

instruction that “‘an official action is no less official

because it is one in a series of steps to exercise influence or

achieve an end.’” Id. (emphasis omitted) (quoting J.A. 7672).

We find no error in either of the court’s statements.

We observe, first, that the federal bribery statute,

18 U.S.C. § 201(b), from which the honest-services wire fraud

statute draws meaning, criminalizes the act of “corruptly

demand[ing], seek[ing], receiv[ing], accept[ing], or agree[ing]

to receive or accept” a thing of value in return for influence.

18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2). The solicitation or acceptance of the

bribe completes the crime, regardless of whether the recipient

completes, or even commences, the “official act” the bribe payor

sought to influence. See Howard v. United States, 345 F.2d 126,

63
128 (1st Cir. 1965) (“[I]t has been long established that the

crime of bribery is complete upon the acceptance of a bribe

regardless of whether or not improper action is thereafter

taken.”). The same is true of a Hobbs Act extortion charge.

See Evans, 504 U.S. at 268 (recognizing that the crime of

extortion under color of official right is “completed at the

time when the public official receives a payment in return for

his agreement to perform specific official acts”); United States

v. Loftus, 992 F.2d 793, 797 (8th Cir. 1993). In either case,

when prosecuting a bribe recipient, the Government need only

prove that he or she solicited or accepted the bribe in return

for performing, or being influenced in, some particular official

act. Of importance, the consummation of an “official act” is

“not an element of the offense.” Evans, 504 U.S. at 268.

We further observe that an “official act” may pertain

to matters outside of the bribe recipient’s control. See 18

U.S.C. § 201(a)(3) (providing that an act may be “official” so

long as the matter to be decided or acted upon “may by law be

brought before any public official” (emphasis supplied)).

Indeed, in Birdsall, the defendant-officers lacked any authority

to grant clemency; all they could provide was advice. 233 U.S.

at 229-30. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court upheld their bribery

indictments. See id. at 236. Likewise, in Sears v. United

States, the First Circuit recognized that government inspectors

64
were performing an “official” function, for purposes of two

shoemakers’ federal bribery charges, when they accepted payoffs

to disregard inadequacies in leather shoes destined for sale to

the Army. 264 F. 257, 261-62 (1st Cir. 1920). As the court

stated:

The fact that these inspectors acted only in
a preliminary or in an advisory capacity,
and without final power to reject or accept,
does not prevent their duties from
being official duties. Final decisions
frequently, perhaps generally, rest in large
part upon the honesty and efficiency of
preliminary advice. . . . To sustain the
contention of the defendants that these
inspectors were not performing an official
function would be to rule that the thousands
of inspectors employed to advise and assist
the government under the contracts for the
hundreds of millions of war supplies might
be bribed with impunity. To state the
proposition is to reject it.

Id.

Our decision in Jefferson supports the proposition

that mere steps in furtherance of a final action or decision may

constitute an “official act.” The defendant in that case was a

former Louisiana congressman who, as co-chair of the Africa

Trade and Investment Caucus and the Congressional Caucus on

Nigeria, was “largely responsible for promoting trade” with

Africa. 674 F.3d at 357. A jury convicted Jefferson of both

bribery and honest-services wire fraud, based in part on

allegations that he asked a telecommunications company to hire

65
his family’s consulting firm in return for his efforts to

promote the company’s technology in Africa. See id. at 338.

Jefferson’s efforts on the company’s behalf involved a series of

trips and meetings. In particular, we explained, “acts

performed by Jefferson in exchange for the various bribe

payments included, inter alia”: “corresponding and visiting with

foreign officials”; “[a]ttempting to facilitate and promote”

certain business ventures; “[s]cheduling and conducting

meetings”; and “seeking to secure construction contracts.” Id.

at 356. We were satisfied that these activities were in keeping

with Jefferson’s settled practice of serving constituents and

promoting trade in Africa and that, accordingly, the jury was

“entitled to conclude” that his actions “fall under the umbrella

of his ‘official acts.’” Id. at 357-58.

ii.

Appellant next challenges the district court’s

instruction that a public official “need not have actual or

final authority over the end result sought by a bribe payor so

long as the alleged bribe payor reasonably believes that the

public official had influence, power or authority over a means

to the end sought by the bribe payor.” J.A. 7672. Appellant

argues that this is a misstatement of law: a bribe payor’s

subjective belief cannot convert a non-official act into an

66
official one. See Appellant’s Br. 55. Again, we are

unpersuaded.

The first part of the court’s instruction is

indisputably correct. 21 In Wilson v. United States, we held that

a bribery conviction will stand regardless of whether the bribe

recipient “had actual authority to carry out his commitments

under the bribery scheme.” 230 F.2d 521, 526 (4th Cir. 1956).

There, a jury convicted an adjutant general of soliciting bribes

from an insurance salesman in exchange for the right to sell

insurance at Fort Jackson -- even though the solicitations

occurred while the adjutant general was temporarily relieved of

his post. 22 See id. at 523. We deemed the adjutant general’s

lack of actual authority “immaterial”: “Regardless of his

actual authority, it was still within his practical power to

influence the regulation of insurance sales as it had formerly

21
Appellant’s own proposed jury instructions concede the
point, stating that a public official “can perform an ‘official
act’ when it is a settled practice as part of the official’s
position for him to exercise influence over a government
decision even if he does not have authority to make the final
decision himself.” J.A. 753.
22
The statute of conviction in Wilson was 18 U.S.C. § 202,
which authorized penalties for any federal officer or employee
who “asks [for], accepts, or receives” a thing of value “with
intent to have his decision or action on any question, matter,
cause, or proceeding which may at any time be pending, or which
may by law be brought before him in his official capacity, or in
his place of trust or profit, influenced thereby.” 18 U.S.C.
§ 202 (1952) (current version at 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) (2012)).

67
been . . . .” Id. at 526; cf. United States v. Ring, 706 F.3d

460, 470 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding that a Department of Justice

attorney committed an “official act” pursuant to § 201(c) when

he forwarded an email to another government official in an

effort to expedite a foreign student’s visa application, even

though the attorney “lacked independent authority to expedite

visa applications”).

As to the second part of the court’s instruction, we

have no difficulty recognizing that proof of a bribe payor’s

subjective belief in the recipient’s power or influence over a

matter will support a conviction for extortion under color of

official right. See United States v. Bencivengo, 749 F.3d 205,

212-13 (3d Cir. 2014); United States v. Blackwood, 768 F.2d 131,

134-35 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Bibby, 752 F.2d 1116

(6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Rabbitt, 583 F.2d 1014, 1027

(8th Cir. 1978) (“The official need not control the function in

question if the extorted party possesses a reasonable belief in

the official’s powers.”). As the First Circuit explained in

United States v. Hathaway, the phrase “under color of official

right” “includes the misuse of office to induce payments not

due.” 534 F.2d 386, 394 (1st Cir. 1976). Accordingly, the

“relevant question” when contemplating a prosecution under this

statute is simply whether the government official “imparted and

68
exploited a reasonable belief that he had effective influence

over” the subject of the bribe. Id.

Plainly, Hobbs Act principles support the district

court’s instruction that a bribe recipient’s lack of actual

authority over a matter does not preclude “official act” status,

“so long as the alleged bribe payor reasonably believes” that

the recipient had “influence, power or authority over a means to

the end sought.” J.A. 7672. We are satisfied, therefore, that

this instruction was not erroneous with respect to the Hobbs Act

extortion charges.

It is less certain that a bribe payor’s subjective

belief in the recipient’s power or influence will suffice to

demonstrate an “official act” for purposes of an honest-services

wire fraud charge. The “intangible right of honest services,”

after all, is a right held by the public. See United States v.

Harvey, 532 F.3d 326, 333 (4th Cir. 2008). When a government

official agrees to influence a matter in exchange for money,

that official deprives the public of his “honest, faithful, and

disinterested services.” Id. (internal quotation marks

omitted). The third party who pays the government official may

be a constituent of the official, but he is no victim, and the

honest-services wire fraud statute does not seek to protect him.

Appellant’s argument, therefore, that the subjective

beliefs of a third party in an honest-services wire fraud case

69
cannot “convert non-official acts into official ones” is

debatable. Appellant’s Br. 55 (emphasis omitted). This,

however, is not an issue that we need to decide. Even if the

court’s instruction on this point were erroneous, the error

would be harmless. See Ramos-Cruz, 667 F.3d at 496. As

Governor of Virginia, Appellant most certainly had power and

influence over the results Williams was seeking. We have no

doubt that the jury’s verdict on the honest-services wire fraud

charge would have been the same even if the instructions

required a finding that Appellant had the power to influence a

means to the end being sought.

Appellant has thus failed to show that the court’s

“official act” instructions, taken as a whole, were anything

less than a “fair and accurate statement of law.” United States

v. Smoot, 690 F.3d 215, 223 (4th Cir. 2012). Appellant’s claim

of reversible error with respect to the “official act”

instructions is therefore rejected.

c.

We likewise reject Appellant’s argument that the court

erred in refusing to give his proposed instructions on the

meaning of “official act.” We review a district court’s refusal

to give a specific jury instruction for abuse of discretion,

“and reverse only when the rejected instruction (1) was correct;

(2) was not substantially covered by the court’s charge to the

70
jury; and (3) dealt with some point in the trial so

important . . . that failure to give the requested instruction

seriously impaired the defendant’s ability to conduct his

defense.” United States v. Smith, 701 F.3d 1002, 1011 (4th Cir.

2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Appellant’s proposed instruction contained the

following passage:

[T]he fact that an activity is a routine
activity, or a “settled practice,” of an
office-holder does not alone make it an
“official act.” Many settled practices of
government officials are not official acts
within the meaning of the statute. For
example, merely arranging a meeting,
attending an event, hosting a reception, or
making a speech are not, standing alone,
“official acts,” even if they are settled
practices of the official. A government
official’s decisions on who[m] to invite to
lunch, whether to attend an event, or
whether to attend a meeting or respond to a
phone call are not decisions on matters
pending before the government. That is
because mere ingratiation and access are not
corruption.

J.A. 753.

This passage is problematic in a number of ways.

First, it is hardly evident that “[m]any” settled practices do

not qualify as “official acts.” J.A. 753. Even if this were

so, it is not a statement of law. Rather, it seems to us a

thinly veiled attempt to argue the defense’s case. Given the

71
risk of misleading the jury, we cannot fault the court for

declining to give this instruction.

The court was likewise justified in rejecting

Appellant’s assertion that “merely arranging a meeting,

attending an event, hosting a reception, or making a speech”

cannot constitute an “official act.” As detailed above, neither

Sun-Diamond nor any other precedent sweeps so broadly.

Moving on, Appellant has also failed to explain why

the court should have instructed the jury that “decisions on

who[m] to invite to lunch, whether to attend an event, or

whether to attend a meeting or respond to a phone call are not

decisions on matters pending before the government.” J.A. 753.

Even if we assume that most such decisions would not qualify as

official acts, we cannot accept the assertion that they may

never do so. Here, again, the proposed instruction goes too

far.

Finally, we hold that the court did not err in

refusing to instruct the jury, in language borrowed from

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310,

361 (2010), that “mere ingratiation and access are not

corruption.” J.A. 753. Affording the talismanic significance

Appellant assigns to this language ignores its context; Citizens

United, a campaign-finance case, involved neither the honest-

services statute nor the Hobbs Act. Moreover, the Citizens

72
United Court employed the “ingratiation” language only after

providing a much broader definition of corruption: “The hallmark

of corruption is the financial quid pro quo: dollars for

political favors.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 359 (internal

quotation marks omitted). In the case at hand, this broader

definition was “substantially covered by the court’s charge to

the jury.” Smith, 701 F.3d at 1011 (internal quotation marks

omitted). Thus, the court’s failure to include this language

did not “impair[]” Appellant’s “ability to conduct his defense.”

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court

instructed the jury that “there would be no crime” as long as

Appellant “believed in good faith that he . . . was acting

properly, even if he . . . was mistaken in that belief.” J.A.

7692. Appellant was thus free to argue that he believed in good

faith that any ingratiation or access he provided Williams was

entirely proper. If the jury believed that, it would have had

no choice but to acquit him.

Taken as a whole, Appellant’s proposed instruction on

the meaning of “official act” failed to present the district

court with a correct statement of law. He cannot now argue that

the court’s refusal to give that instruction was an abuse of

discretion.

73
 3.

Quid Pro Quo

Appellant also contests the court’s instructions on

the “quid pro quo” elements of honest-services wire fraud and

Hobbs Act extortion, maintaining that the court’s gloss on this

term would criminalize the lawful receipt of “goodwill” gifts to

lawmakers.

In this context, the term “quid pro quo” refers to “an

intent on the part of the public official to perform acts on his

payor’s behalf.” Jefferson, 674 F.3d at 358; see also Sun-

Diamond, 526 U.S. at 404-05 (defining “quid pro quo as “a

specific intent to give or receive something of value in

exchange for an official act” (emphasis omitted)). Accordingly,

in its instructions on the honest-services wire fraud charge,

the district court explained that the jury must find that

Appellant demanded or received the item of value “corruptly” --

i.e., with an “improper motive or purpose.” J.A. 7669-70; see

United States v. Quinn, 359 F.3d 666, 674 (4th Cir. 2004)

(defining “[c]orrupt intent” under 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)).

Likewise, in its Hobbs Act instruction, the court stated that

Appellant must have “obtained a thing of value to which he was

not entitled, knowing that the thing of value was given in

return for official action.” J.A. 7682; see Evans, 504 U.S. at

268.

74
 Appellant’s contention is not that the court’s

instructions were incorrect but, rather, that they were

incomplete. In particular, Appellant asserts that the court

failed to make the jury aware of a critical limitation on

bribery liability when it neglected to state, per his proposed

instructions, that “[a] gift or payment given with the

generalized hope of some unspecified future benefit is not a

bribe.” J.A. 751; accord id. at 756. Appellant claims that

this omission seriously impaired his defense because “a central

defense theory was that Governor McDonnell believed Williams was

simply trying to cultivate goodwill.” Appellant’s Br. 59-60.

Appellant’s statement of the law is correct, so far as

it goes. See United States v. Jennings, 160 F.3d 1006, 1013

(4th Cir. 1998). “It is universally recognized that bribery

occurs only if the gift is coupled with a particular criminal

intent. That intent is not supplied merely by the fact that the

gift was motivated by some generalized hope or expectation of

ultimate benefit on the part of the donor.” United States v.

Arthur, 544 F.2d 730, 734 (4th Cir. 1976) (citations omitted)

(reversing a conviction for misapplication of bank funds

pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 656). The bribe payor must have more

than a “‘[v]ague expectation[]’” that the public official will

reward his kindness, somehow or other. Jennings, 160 F.3d at

1013 (quoting United States v. Allen, 10 F.3d 405, 411 (7th Cir.

75
1993)). He must harbor an intent to secure a “specific type of

official action or favor in return” for his largesse. Id. at

1014 (emphasis omitted).

The Government never disputed these points. Indeed,

there is little reason to doubt that if the defense had

submitted a written instruction relating to goodwill gifts, the

court would have accepted it. However, the defense did no such

thing. Instead, its proposed “goodwill gift” language was

tucked into the penultimate sentence of the defense’s proposed

instructions on the definition of “corruptly,” see J.A. 751,

756, a term the court took care to explicate, see id. at 7670

(explaining that bribery requires a corrupt intent -- meaning,

here, that the public official must demand, seek, or receive the

item of value “knowingly and dishonestly for a wrongful

purpose”). As outlined above, the court emphasized the

essentiality of the prosecution’s burden to prove corrupt intent

when it instructed the jury on Appellant’s “good faith” defense.

See J.A. 7692 (charging the jury that “if a defendant believed

in good faith that he or she was acting properly, even if he or

she was mistaken in that belief, and even if others were injured

by his or her conduct, there would be no crime”). Appellant was

adamant, during the trial conference, about the importance of

his “good faith” defense in this case, referring to it as “our

critical defense.” Id. at 7360.

76
 It is not enough, in any event, for Appellant to show

that his proposed instructions contained a correct statement of

law. If, as it happens, the rejected instruction was

“substantially covered by the court’s charge to the jury,” there

is no reversible error. United States v. Passaro, 577 F.3d 207,

221 (4th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). Put

succinctly, we are satisfied that the court’s “quid pro quo”

instructions were adequate. In its Hobbs Act instruction, the

court made clear that extortion under color of official right

requires an intent to have the public official “take specific

official action on the payor’s behalf.” J.A. 7682-83 (emphasis

supplied). Similarly, in its instruction on honest-services

wire fraud, the court referred to the “quo” in a quid pro quo

exchange as “the requested official action” -- signaling that an

official action necessarily entails some particular type of act

within the parties’ contemplation at the time of the exchange.

Id. at 7669.

In sum, we are satisfied that the court properly

instructed the jury on the “quid pro quo” requirement of the

charged offenses. Accordingly, we reject Appellant’s claim of

instructional error in that respect.

77
 B.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

This leads us to Appellant’s claim that the

Government’s evidence was insufficient to support the

convictions. “We review a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence de novo . . . .” United States v. Bran, 776 F.3d 276,

279 (4th Cir. 2015). If, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the Government, we find there is substantial

evidence to support the conviction, we will affirm the jury

verdict. See United States v. Hager, 721 F.3d 167, 179 (4th

Cir. 2013). “Substantial evidence is such evidence that a

reasonable finder of fact could accept as adequate and

sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant’s guilt beyond

a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

To review, the Government set out to prove that

Williams and Appellant engaged in a corrupt quid pro quo.

Williams, we know, supplied the “quid,” and plenty of it. Among

other things, he provided Appellant’s family -- generally at the

behest of Appellant or Mrs. McDonnell -- with multiple five-

figure payments and loans, expensive getaways, shopping trips,

golf outings, and a Rolex watch. The greater challenge for the

Government was persuading the jury that Williams’s payments to

Appellant and his family were “pro quo.” In short, the

Government was obligated to prove, first, that Williams’s

78
payments came with a corrupt understanding and, second, that the

key to that understanding was the expectation that Appellant

would perform certain official acts for Williams’s benefit.

1.

Evidence of Official Acts

In the first place, we reject Appellant’s contention

that the Government’s evidence cannot satisfy the “official act”

requirement.

An “official act,” as defined by statute, requires the

existence of some “question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or

controversy.” 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). Here, the Government

presented evidence of three questions or matters within

Appellant’s sphere of influence. The first of these was whether

researchers at any of Virginia’s state universities would

initiate a study of Anatabloc. The second was whether the

state-created Tobacco Indemnification and Community

Revitalization Commission (“Tobacco Commission”) would allocate

grant money for the study of anatabine. The third was whether

the health insurance plan for state employees in Virginia would

include Anatabloc as a covered drug.

These were all government matters, and Appellant, as

head of the Commonwealth’s government, was in a prime position

to affect their disposition. The Constitution of Virginia vests

the Governor with “[t]he chief executive power of the

79
Commonwealth.” Va. Const. art. V., § 1. State law provides

that the Governor “shall have the authority and responsibility

for the formulation and administration of the policies of the

executive branch.” Va. Code Ann. § 2.2-103.A. These powers

include the authority to approve the health insurance plans

provided to public-sector employees at the state and local

level. See id. §§ 2.2-1204.A, -2818.A. In addition, among his

myriad other powers, the Governor appoints 12 of the 13 members

of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia, see id.

§ 23-9.3.C.; all members serving on the boards of visitors of

Virginia Commonwealth University and the University of Virginia,

see id. §§ 23-50.6(a), -70.A; and a majority of commissioners on

the Tobacco Commission, see id. § 3.2-3102.A.

With power comes influence. As the witness Jerry

Kilgore, Star’s lawyer, put it: “[T]he Governor is the Chief

Executive of the Commonwealth. He has this bully pulpit, if you

will, to go out and talk about issues.” J.A. 4374. The

evidence at trial made clear that Star executives wanted

Appellant to use his prominence and influence to the company’s

advantage. See e.g., id. at 3898 (former Star President Perito

testifying that when “the Chief Executive of the

Commonwealth . . . embraces the worthiness of the

product[,] . . . [i]t gives it a type of credibility”); see also

id. at 2314 (Williams testifying that the opportunity to

80
“showcase” a product at the Governor’s Mansion “automatically”

imbues the product with “credibility”).

To the extent, then, that Appellant made any

“decision” or took any “action” on these matters, the federal

bribery laws would hold that decision or action to be

“official.” 18 U.S.C. § 201(a)(3). As we have explained, it

was not necessary for the Government to prove that Appellant

actually took any such official action. What the Government had

to show was that the allegedly corrupt agreement between

Appellant and Williams carried with it an expectation that some

type of official action would be taken. See United States v.

Giles, 246 F.3d 966, 973 (7th Cir. 2001). Here, the Government

exceeded its burden. It showed that Appellant did, in fact, use

the power of his office to influence governmental decisions on

each of the three questions and matters discussed above.

First, in August 2011, Appellant asked his Secretary

of Health, Dr. Hazel, to send a deputy to a “short briefing”

with Mrs. McDonnell at the Governor’s mansion. In his email to

Hazel, Appellant made clear that the subject of the briefing

would be “the Star Scientific anatablock trials planned in va at

vcu and uva.” G.S.A. 80. Naturally, the staff complied. As

one staffer, Molly Huffstetler, wrote in an email to her

colleagues: “[W]e will do what we can to carry out the desires

of the Governor and First Lady.” Id. at 81.

81
 That same month, Appellant and his wife hosted a

product launch for Anatabloc at the Governor’s Mansion. Prior

to the event, Mrs. McDonnell explained to a staff member that

one of the purposes of the event was to “encourag[e]

universities to do research on the product.” J.A. 3608.

Invitees included Dr. Clore, an associate vice president for

clinical research at VCU, and Dr. Lazo, former associate dean

for basic research at the UVA School of Medicine. Appellant

spoke with Lazo, asking him and other attendees whether they

thought “there was some scientific validity” to the pre-clinical

studies of Anatabloc presented at the event and “whether or not

there was any reason to explore this further; would it help to

have additional information.” J.A. 3344. Appellant also asked

whether the development of Anatabloc could “be something good

for the Commonwealth, particularly as it relates to [the]

economy or job creation.” Id.

A series of emails exchanged in February 2012 between

Appellant, his wife, and chief counsel Eige shows Appellant

continuing to push for state university research on Anatabloc.

In a February 17 email, Appellant told Eige: “Pls see me about

anatabloc issues at VCU and UVA. Thx.” G.S.A. 157. Eige would

later express his discomfort with Appellant’s involvement in the

issue, telling Kilgore: “I’ve been asked by the Governor to call

and put -- you know, show support for this research, and I’m

82
just -- I just don’t think we should be doing it.” J.A. 4374

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Just a week before Appellant’s email to Eige, Mrs.

McDonnell sent a series of emails of her own asking Eige to get

in touch with Williams. The first email bore the subject line:

“FW: Anatabine clinical studies – UVA, VCU, JHU.” This email

said that Williams “has calls in to VCU & UVA & no one will

return his calls.” G.S.A. 147. The next day, while sitting

right next to Appellant, Mrs. McDonnell emailed Eige again:

Pls call Jonnie today [and] get him to fill
u in on where this is at. Gov wants to know
why nothing has developed w studies after
Jonnie gave $200,000. . . . Gov wants to
get this going w VCU MCV. Pls let us know
what u find out after we return.

Id. at 154. The email included Williams’s cell phone number.

Eige later testified that he understood the emails to mean that

Mrs. McDonnell wanted him to “[s]omehow reach out and

see . . . if we couldn’t elicit some type of response from these

two universities.” J.A. 3214.

Appellant argues that these actions -- asking a

staffer to attend a briefing, questioning a university

researcher at a product launch, and directing a policy advisor

to “see” him about an issue -- are too insignificant to

constitute official acts. We disagree. With each of these

acts, Appellant exploited the power of his office in furtherance

83
of an ongoing effort to influence the work of state university

researchers. Accordingly, a reasonable juror could find, beyond

a reasonable doubt, that the actions contemplated under

Appellant’s agreement with Williams were “official” in nature.

A jury could likewise conclude that Appellant

performed an “official” act when he discussed Anatabloc at the

March 2012 meeting with two high-ranking administration

officials: Secretary of Administration Hicks-Thomas and

Department of Human Resource Management Director Sara Wilson.

There, amid a discussion about the state employee health

insurance plan, Appellant pulled a bottle of Anatabloc from his

pocket and showed the pills to Hicks-Thomas and Wilson. As

Hicks-Thomas recalled, Appellant “said that he had been taking

[the pills] and that they were working well for him, and that he

thought it would be good for . . . state employees.” J.A. 4227.

Appellant then asked Hicks-Thomas and Wilson if they would be

willing to meet with Star. Here, again, the evidence suggests

that Appellant used his position as Governor to influence a

matter of importance to Virginia. This evidence was more than

sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.

2.

Evidence of a Quid Pro Quo

Next we turn to whether the Government presented

evidence sufficient to support a conclusion that there was a

84
corrupt quid pro quo, “a specific intent to give or receive

something of value in exchange for an official act.” Sun-

Diamond, 526 U.S. at 404–05 (emphasis omitted). To establish

the necessary intent, the Government had to present evidence of

“an exchange of money (or gifts) for specific official action.”

Jennings, 160 F.3d at 1014. Direct proof of a corrupt intent is

not necessary, and “[s]uch an intent may be established by

circumstantial evidence.” Id.

At trial, the Government presented an array of

evidence to show Appellant’s corrupt intent. Critically, the

Government’s evidence demonstrated a close relationship between

Appellant’s official acts and the money, loans, gifts, and

favors provided by Williams to Appellant and Mrs. McDonnell.

With respect to the official acts alleged by the Government, a

“quo” came on the heels of each “quid.” For example:

• Between July 28 and July 31, 2011,
Williams provided lodging, transportation,
and a boat for the McDonnells’ Smith
Mountain Lake vacation. Upon returning
home on July 31 -- after a three-hour trip
home in Williams’s Ferrari -- Appellant
directed Hazel to send a deputy to meet
with Mrs. McDonnell about Anatabloc. On
August 1, Huffstetler, Williams, and Mrs.
McDonnell met at the Governor’s Mansion to
discuss Anatabloc clinical trials at UVA
and VCU.

• Later that month, on August 31, 2011,
McDonnell hosted the launch of Anatabloc
at the Governor’s Mansion. State
employees arranged the event, and

85
 invitations to the launch bore the
Governor’s seal. UVA and VCU researchers
attended as invited representatives of
their institutions, boxes of Anatabloc
were placed at each place setting, and
Williams and Mrs. McDonnell spoke at the
event.

• Between February and March 2012, Appellant
and Williams had a series of discussions
regarding a $50,000 so-called loan. On
February 16, Appellant checked in with
Williams about documents relating to the
monies. Six minutes later, Appellant
emailed Eige, asking Eige to see him about
the Anatabloc studies.

• During these payment negotiations, Mrs.
McDonnell and Appellant encouraged
Williams to “invite all the doctors that
[he] want[ed] to invite” to the healthcare
industry leaders reception held at the
Governor’s Mansion on February 29. J.A.
2312. The list of invitees for the event
was revised to include Williams’s guests
at the direction of Appellant and Mrs.
McDonnell.

• On the day of the healthcare leaders
event, Appellant met with Williams about a
loan of Star Scientific shares worth
$187,000. J.A. 6767-72. Less than five
hours later, Appellant saw Williams at the
event. Appellant’s briefing materials for
the evening specifically identified the
“[p]ersonal doctors of McDonnells,” which
included Williams’s guests, doctors
affiliated with Anatabloc. J.A. 6775.
Following the event, Williams took
Appellant, Mrs. McDonnell, and two of
these doctors out to dinner.

• On March 6, 2012, as a result of the
negotiations, Williams wrote a $50,000
check to Mobo. Then, on March 21,
Appellant met with Hicks-Thomas to discuss
covering Anatabloc under the state health
86
 plan. Appellant also asked Hicks-Thomas
to meet with Star representatives.

The temporal relationship between the “quids” and “quos” -- the

gifts, payments, loans, and favors and the official acts --

constitute compelling evidence of corrupt intent.

Throughout the two years during which Appellant was

performing the official acts alleged, Williams lavished

Appellant with shopping sprees, money, loans, golf outings, and

vacations:

• In April 2011, Mrs. McDonnell contacted
Williams about a political rally and
shopping in New York. On April 13,
Williams spent approximately $20,000 on
Mrs. McDonnell’s New York City shopping
spree. That evening, Williams sat next to
Appellant and his wife during the
political rally.

• In May 2011, Williams loaned the
McDonnells $50,000 and provided $15,000 to
cover the McDonnells’ daughter’s wedding
reception. When she requested the loan,
Mrs. McDonnell said, “The Governor says
it’s okay for me to help you and -- but I
need you to help me.” J.A. 2231 (internal
quotation marks omitted). In the
meantime, Appellant passed an article
about Anatabloc along to members of his
administration.

• On May 29, 2011, Williams paid $2,380.24
for Appellant and his sons to enjoy golf
and amenities at Kinloch Golf Club.

• On January 7, Williams paid $1,368.91 for
another of Appellant’s golf outings.

87
 • During the 2012 Memorial Day weekend,
Williams footed the bill for the
McDonnells’ vacation, spending more than
$7,300.

None of these payments were goodwill gifts from one friend to

another. Indeed, Appellant and Williams did not know each other

until after Appellant was elected Governor. As Williams

testified with regard to the money he provided, “I was loaning

[Appellant] money so that he would help our company.” Id. at

2360. He expected Appellant “to help me move this product

forward in Virginia” by “assisting with the universities, with

the testing, or help with government employees, or publicly

supporting the product.” Id. at 2355. And since at least their

shared cross-country flight in October 2010, Appellant knew what

Williams wanted for his company: independent studies of

Anatabloc conducted by Virginia universities.

This evidence established that Appellant received

money, loans, favors, and gifts from Williams in exchange for

official acts to help Williams secure independent testing of

Anatabloc. In light of the foregoing, the jury could readily

infer that there were multiple quid pro quo payments, and that

Appellant acted in the absence of good faith and with the

necessary corrupt intent. See United States v. Hamilton, 701

88
F.3d 404, 409 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[I]ntent can be implied -- and

it is the jury’s role to make such factual inferences.”). 23

In sum, Appellant has thereby failed to sustain his

heavy burden of showing that the Government’s evidence was

inadequate. See United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405, 419 (4th

Cir. 2012) (“A defendant bringing a sufficiency challenge must

overcome a heavy burden, and reversal for insufficiency must be

confined to cases where the prosecution’s failure is clear.”

(citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Accordingly, the trial evidence was sufficient to support each

of Appellant’s convictions.

IV.

Appellant received a fair trial and was duly convicted

by a jury of his fellow Virginians. We have no cause to undo

what has been done. The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

23
Significantly, the jury found the necessary corrupt
intent despite being instructed extensively on Appellant’s “good
faith” defense and hearing from an array of witnesses who
testified to Appellant’s honesty, integrity, respect for the
law, and good character. The jury was instructed not only that
“if a defendant believed in good faith that he or she was acting
properly . . . there would be no crime,” but also that “evidence
of good character alone may create a reasonable doubt as to a
defendant’s guilt.” See J.A. 7692, 7694. Appellant’s character
witnesses included cabinet members from his time as Governor of
Virginia, as well as longtime friends such as Father Timothy R.
Scully, a Catholic priest and University of Notre Dame professor
who met Appellant in 1972 when they became college roommates.

89