Whether this Court's decision in United States v. Evans modified the explicit quid pro quo standard required by United States v. McCormick, or whether McCormick and Evans establish two different tests applicable to two different situations

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Whether this Court’s decision in United States v. Evans, 504 U.S. 255 (1992) modified the explicit quid pro quo standard required by United States v. McCormick, 500 U.S. 257 (1991), or whether, as the majority of circuits have held, McCormick and Evans establish two different tests applicable to two different situations: Evans applying only outside of the campaign contribution context, permitting the jury to imply a quid pro quo agreement; and McCormick applying to charges based solely on campaign contributions. Whether the narrow definition of “official action” articulated by this Court in McDonnell v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2355 (2016) encompasses the mere hope or expectation by an individual that a public official will take some action to refer them a legal contract — particularly where the defendant does not know what action(s) the public official may take and the public official has no authority over the contract, thus requiring the government to prove the public official exerted or intended to exert pressure over another public official. Jd. at 2370-71.