sion as to whether Andrews was charged with honest services fraud. 10 . There is a narrow category of cases involving “structural errors,” which affect the “framework within which the trial proceeds.” United States v. Marcus, - U.S. --, 130 S.Ct. 2159, 2164, 176 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2010) (citing Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 468, 117 S.Ct. 1544, 137 L.Ed.2d 718 (1997)). The Supreme Court has left open the possibility that in cases involving "structural errors,” the defendant need not demonstrate that the error impacted the outcome of the trial. Id. at 2164-65. However, Skilling error is not “structural” and thus, Andrews bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was not harmless. See Hedgpeth v. Pulido, 555 U.S. 57, 58, 129 S.Ct. 530, 172 L.Ed.2d 388 (2008) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Skilling (Skilling II), 638
holding that no structural error occurs where a jury is instructed on alternative theories of guilt and the defendant alleges that the jury relied on an invalid theory holding that there is no error in instructing the jury on alternative theories if there is sufficient evidence that the defendant committed firstdegree murder holding that a jury instruction directing the verdict on one element deprived defendant of the right to a jury determination on every element of the charged offense and thus constituted structural error holding that a failure to instruct the jury on additional uncharged conspiracies is not reversible error so long as the jury is instructed that the government has the burden to prove the charged conspiracy holding that a jury verdict will be sustained on any reasonable theory based on the evidence