Whether the Sixth Circuit departed from this Court's decision in Arthur Anderson and conflicted with the Second Circuit's decision in Rooney when it held that the defendant's spending the funds she received from a school vendor exclusively to benefit her students and the school was irrelevant to the question of whether she acted corruptly

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In Arthur Anderson LLP vy. United States, this Court held that only people with immoral, depraved, wrongful, or evil motive, only people conscious of their wrongdoing, can be said to act corruptly. 544 U.S. 696 (2005). In United States v. Rooney, the Second Circuit held that in the context of the federal bribery statute, it is relevant to the question of whether one acts corruptly to consider evidence of the purpose of their actions. 37 F.3d 847 (2d Cir. 1994). Did the Sixth Circuit depart form this Court’s decision in Arthur Anderson, and conflict with the decision of the Second Circuit in Rooney, when it held that Buendia’s spending the funds she received from a school vendor exclusively to benefit her students and the school was irrelevant to the question of whether she acted corruptly?