complaint that the defendants conspired to monopolize. See Record vol. 4, at 832-34. To the contrary, appellants conceded in their main brief that "[Yellow's] negotiations with respect to the subject exclusive concession agreement was [sic] undertaken at arm’s length____” Brief for Appellant Arrow at 46; Brief for Appellant Independents at 45-46. Thus, while the existence or nonexistence of sham-ful conduct is generally a question of fact for the jury, Feminist Women’s Health Center v. Mohammad, 586 F.2d 530, 543 (5th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 924, 100 S.Ct. 262, 62 L.Ed.2d 180 (1979), appellants have nonetheless failed to present enough evidence to survive Yellow’s motion for summary judgment. Cf. Metro Cable Co. v. CATV of Rockford, Inc., 516 F.2d 220, 228-32 (7th Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). But cf. Duke & Co., Inc. v. Foerster, 521
holding that where a public official takes discretionary action that the official knows will directly benefit a financial interest that the official has concealed in violation of a state criminal law that official has deprived the public of his honest services under  1346 holding that because a city inspector was not entitled to official immunity the city was not entitled to vicarious official immunity recognizing as a general matter that official immunity would protect official decisions to investigate suspected fraud in the administration of government contracts holding that private party can assert official immunity if it contracted with a public official to perform governmental duties holding that agreement of government official to petitioning entitys anticompetitive plan was insufficient to render the official a coconspirator for purposes of undermining noerrpennington immunity