for a grant from the federal government to make improvements to the county’s jail. The federal government also agreed to pay the costs of housing each federal prisoner. The defendant was convicted of accepting bribes from a federal prisoner in exchange for “contact visits” with the prisoner’s wife and girlfriend. Id. On appeal, the defendant argued that the Government should have been required to prove that the bribe had some effect on federal funds. Id. at 55, 118 S.Ct. 469. The Court began by noting that Section 666’s “expansive, unqualified language, both as to the bribes forbidden and the entities covered, does not support the interpretation that federal funds must be affected to violate § 666(a)(1)(B).” Id. at 56, 118 S.Ct. 469. According to the Court, the statute “applie ir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Zwick, 199 F.3d 672 (3d
holding that some federal connection to the misconduct is required holding that  666 does not require any connection between the misconduct and federal funds holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury holding the connection is an element holding that no federal nexus is required