job, the government concedes it cannot invoke § 1346 in this case. Therefore, the government relies on the "salary theory” as an avenue to prosecute the defendant solely under § 1341. 33 .McNally, 483 U.S. at 377 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 2875 (Stevens, J., dissenting). 34 . Id. 35 . 833 F.2d 1147, 1157 (5th Cir.1987). 36 . Id. at 1149. 37 . Id. 38 . Id. at 1156. 39 . Id. at 1157. 40 . Id. 41 . Id. 42 . 821 F.2d 1002 (5th Cir. 1987). 43 . Id. at 1005. 44 . Id. 45 . Id. 46 . Id. at 1008-09. 47 . Id. at 1009. 48 . Id. at 1009 (citing United States v. Ballard, 680 F.2d 352, 354 n. 5 (5th Cir.1982)). 49 . Id. 50 . Id. 51 . Id. at 1009-10. 52 . Id. at 1010 n. 6. 53 . 908 F.2d 278 (8th Cir. 1990). 54 . Id. at 279. 55 . Id. 56 . Id. at 280. 57 . United States v. Pepper, 51 F.3d 469, 473 (5th Cir.1995)(<HOLDING>). 58 . Granberry, 908 F.2d at 279. 59 . 97 F.3d
holding that in the context of mail and wire fraud a plaintiff must have justifiably relied to his detriment on the defendants material misrepresentations holding direct misrepresentations were not required for mail fraud conviction holding clerks action in giving requested mail fraud and contract documents to jury without consulting counsel or judge was error but defendant was not prejudiced because virtually all exhibits were either contract or mail fraud documents holding that plaintiff lacked standing to assert rico claim for mail fraud based on misrepresentations made to third parties holding that misrepresentations about present state of mind are actionable as fraud