With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to a bribery or kickback scheme and thus are also invalid under Skilling. 2. The verdicts on the remaining honest services fraud counts remain valid as to Richards and Thomas, because it is “not open to reasonable doubt that a reasonable jury would have convicted [the defendants]” on a valid theory. United States v. Pelisamen, 641 F.3d 399, 406 (9th Cir.2011) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). The indictment and evidence presented at trial sufficiently charged alternate bribery and kickback theories for the nuisance abatement and CBL transportation contracts, respectively. Indeed, both schemes were separately charged as substantive bribery and kickback offenses, and the jury returned a guilty verdict as to both. See United States v. Wilkes, 662 F.3d 524, 544 (9th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>). Further, based on our thorough examination of

A: holding that a guilty verdict on a separate substantive count of bribery or kickbacks confirms beyond any reasonable doubt that the jury would have convicted defendant of honest services fraud if the courts definition had been limited to a basis that skilling expressly approved
B: holding that the proper harmlesserror inquiry asks absent the improperly introduced evidence is it clear beyond reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty
C: holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted
D: holding that the proper harmlesserror inquiry asks whether absent the improperly introduced evidence it is clear beyond reasonable doubt that the jury would have returned a guilty verdict
A.