who had manipulated the state’s horse racing industry. The Governor’s associates were guilty of failing to disclose their ownership of various racetracks during their dealings with the Maryland Racing Commission; the Governor, meanwhile, had failed to disclose his involvement with the race track owners to state legislators who were considering a bill benefitting the track owners. Mandel, 591 F.2d at 1355. Other circuits likewise have held that schemes involving various types of dishonesty by public officials come within the ambit of the mail fraud statute because such schemes defraud citizens of them intangible rights to honest and impartial government. See, e.g., United States v. Silvano, 812 F.2d 754, 755-57 (1st Cir.1987) (affirming mail fraud conviction of cit 69 (11th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). In light of the foregoing case law, there can
holding that a suit against a state official in his or her official capacity is not a suit against the official but rather is a suit against the officials office 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 a defendant can only be sued in his official capacity under  1983 if he acted pursuant to an official policy or custom in causing the constitutional injury holding police officer is a public official holding that an official has defrauded the public of his services if he secretly makes an official decision based on his own personal interests rather than the best interests of his constituents