to all cases in which an ‘organization, government, or agency’ receives the statutory amount of benefits under a federal program.” Id. at 57, 118 S.Ct. 469. The Court continued by touching on the issue of whether Section 666 could ever be unconstitutional without resolving it: [furthermore, there is no serious doubt about the constitutionality of § 666(a)(1)(B) as applied to the facts of this case. Beltran was without question a prisoner held in a jail managed pursuant to a series of agreements with the Federal Government. The preferential treatment accorded to him was a threat to the integrity and proper operation of the federal program. Whatever might be said about § 666(a)(l)(B)’s application in other cases, the application of § 666(a)(1)(B) to Salinas did not extend federal p 1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Santopietro, 166 F.3d 88 (2d
holding that no federal nexus is required holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification holding that where no factual dispute is raised no hearing is required holding that no nexus is required in part because salinas left the nature of any necessary connection unanswered