1) Whether a legal services contract between a private-practice attorney and a municipality automatically transform the private practitioner into a governmental agent for purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 666 liability, where the prosecution presents no evidence of the legal services actually provided and how those services contributed to the offense.

2) Whether the "official act" requirement that this Court deemed essential in McDonnell v. United States, 579 U.S. 550 (2016), to prevent the unconstitutional overbreadth of the federal bribery statute codified in 18 U.S.C. § 201(b) apply, as well, in a federal bribery prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 666.

3) Whether an attorney in private practice, whose clients include municipal entities, is a "public official" within the meaning of USSG § 2C1.1(a)(1) subject to enhanced punishment.

Whether a private attorney under contract with a municipality can be considered a 'public official' for purposes of federal bribery statutes under 18 U.S.C. § 666 and § 201(b)