With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". apply to what the Supreme Court has termed "public welfare” or "regulatory” offenses. As we discuss below, § 209(a) is not such an offense. See infra note 15. 6 . Similarly, to conclude that a payment was received "as compensation for” something, one must determine the intent of the recipient. 7 . Accord OLC, Application of 18 U.S.C. § 209 to Employee-Inventors Who Receive Outside Royalty Payments (Sept. 7, 2000), 2000 WL 33952879, at *3 (concluding that § 209 does not bar government employee-inventors from receiving outside royalties because there is "no intentional, direct link between an employee-inventor's government services and the licensing of patent rights” (emphasis added)); see also 41 Op. Att’y Gen. 217, 217, 220-21 (1955) (concluding that "whe , 1201 n. 65 (11th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Kay, 513 F.3d 432, 454 (5th

A: holding determination of good faith renders finding of negligence immaterial
B: holding that a finding of specific intent to defraud necessarily excludes a finding of good faith
C: holding that  2314 does not require specific intent to defraud a certain person a general intent to defraud any person who might fall victim to the schemers plan is sufficient
D: holding that the district courts good faith finding is reviewed for clear error
B.