What level of connection between the fraudulent scheme and the mailing is required to trigger the federal statute's jurisdictional hook?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. For the crime of mail fraud, what level of connection between the fraudulent scheme and the mailing is required to trigger the federal statute’s jurisdictional hook—a substantial connection or one that is merely remote? 2a. In evaluating materiality in federal fraud cases, Supreme Court precedent directs the factfinder to evaluate the misrepresentation’s effect on the likely or actual behavior of its recipient. Does the Ninth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Lindsey, 850 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2017) conflict with this definition of materiality by barring consideration of the recipient’s actual behavior to disprove materiality? 2b. When witnesses testify in the government’s case-in-chief that misrepresentations were “significant” to their recipients, does the district court violate the United States Constitution by barring crossexamination and substantive evidence that show that the misrepresentations were actually of no consequence to the recipients? -l