1. Where a foreign statute is used as a predicate to prosecution in a United States court, including but not limited to the vagueness doctrine, are the limitations of McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), not limited to American constitutional limitations?

2. Where a defendant is charged with an offense that requires, as a predicate, violation of a foreign statute that requires a quid pro quo in exchange for official action, must the jury be instructed consistently with the definition of "official act" set forth in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016)?

3. Did the petitioner's conduct, as testified to at trial, amount to an official act pursuant to McDonnell?

Where a foreign statute is used as a predicate for prosecution in an American court, must that statute be construed in accordance with American constitutional limitations, including but not limited to the vagueness doctrine?