Does the undefined element 'scheme to defraud' in 18 U.S.C. § 1343 satisfy Fifth Amendment due process notice requirements?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW : QUESTION I DOES THE UNDEFINED ELEMENT "SCHEME TO DEFRAUD" IN 18 U.S.C. § 1343 SATISFY FIFTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS NOTICE REQUIREMENTS IN LIGHT OF THIS COURT'S DECISION IN FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION et. al. v_ FOX TELEVISION STATIONS et al., 567 U.S. 239, 132 S.Ct. 2307, 183 L.Ed.2d 234 (2012); SKILLING v UNITED STATES, 561 U.S. , 130 S.Ct. , 177 L.Ed.2da 619 . (2010); JOHNSON v UNITED STATES, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015); AND WELCH v UNITED STATES, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016)? QUESTION II IN LIGHT OF GALL v_ UNITED STATES, 552 U.S. 38, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007) . DID THE DISTRICT COURT PROCEDURALLY ERR BY NOT FINDING AN AMOUNT OF LOSS TO ESTABLISH A QUANTIFIABLE LOSS AMOUNT FOR SENTENCING GUIDELINE AND RESTITUTION PURPOSES? QUESTION III DOES THE DISTRICT COURT'S BROAD INSTRUCTION REGARDING REASONABLE DOUBT, WHICH EXCLUDES THE CONCEPTS OF "POSITIVE CERTAINTY," "“ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY CONVINCED," AND "BY ITS NATURE IS NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO A MATHEMA.TICAL CERTAINTY" LESSEN THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE GOVERNMENT? QUESTION IV IN LIGHT OF MCCOY v LOUISIANA, 584 U.S. (2018 No. 16-8255) WAS PETITIONER'S SIXTH AMENDMENT AUTONOMY RIGHT VIOLATED BY COUNSEL'S REFUSAL TO PERMIT PETITIONER TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND COUNSEL'S REFUSAL TO PRESENT WITNESSES TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL? iii