beyond its proper bounds. Id. at 60-61, 118 S.Ct. 469. Limiting its holding to the facts of the case, the Court stated that: We need not consider whether the statute requires some other kind of connection between a bribe and the expenditure of federal funds, for in this case the bribe was related to the housing of a prisoner in facilities paid for in significant part by federal funds themselves. Id. at 59, 118 S.Ct. 469. Consequently, the Court left the door open regarding whether or not some nexus must exist between the alleged theft or bribe and the federal funds. As a result of the Supreme Court’s holding in Salinas, a circuit split has developed on the issue of whether some sort of nexus or connection must be shown. See, e.g., United States v. Dakota, 197 F.3d 821 (6th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Grossi, 143 F.3d 348 (7th
holding that  666 does not require any connection between the misconduct and federal funds holding that some federal connection to the misconduct is required holding that intervening misconduct can sever the temporal proximity connection between the protected conduct and the adverse employment holding that a college received federal funds where the funds were granted to its students as financial aid rather than directly to the college because the language of the section does not distinguish between direct and indirect receipt of federal funds holding that to show a causal connection the plaintiff must demonstrate a relationship between the misconduct and the plaintiffs injury