Does an indictment alleging that the public servant received fraud proceeds from companies that he—jointly with private owned, and controlled allege honest services fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1346?

Questions Presented 1. Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010), holds that fraudulent self-dealing by a public official is not honest services fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1346. Does an indictment alleging that the public servant received fraud proceeds from companies that he—jointly with private owned, and controlled allege honest services fraud under 18 U.S.C. §1346? 2. The district court said ‘yes, it does, and denied the petitioner’s dismissal claim. But the Ninth Circuit refused to reach the question, holding instead that the petitioner’s interlocutory appeal did not fit within the collateral order doctrine. Reviewing the petitioner’s claim now, instead of later, involves nothing more than reading an indictment and rereading Skilling. Deferred review will involve a much lengthier record, replete with a jury trial against three defendants and multiple sentencing hearings, cluttered with all the issues that arise along the way. Accordingly, a second question that this case presents is: Does the collateral order doctrine fail to pick up a claim that the petitioner has a right under this Court’s caselaw not to be prosecuted for honest services fraud—such that the only remedy is to proceed to trial in a federal court on allegations that, as a matter of law, do not constitute honest services fraud, risk jury confusion over such an esoteric type of fraud, face potential conviction and imprisonment as a result of that confusion, and await relief on direct appeal, even though such further proceedings waste scarce judicial and executive resources and, at bottom, conducting them lacks common sense? 2 Parties and Proceedings The caption lists the parties to this petition and on interlocutory appeal in the Ninth Circuit. The petitioner is not a corporation. This case arises from the following proceedings in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: United States v. Sulla, Jr., et al., No. (D. Haw.); and United States v. Budhabhatti, No. 23-3893 (CA9). In the district court proceedings, petitioner Rajesh P. Budhabhatti is one of three defendants, all of whom are private individuals that the government accuses of conspiring with a public servant to commit honest services fraud. The other two defendants are: Paul Joseph Sulla, Jr., represented by Birney B. Bervar; and Gary Charles Zamber, represented by Clinton Westbrook, Gary K. Springstead, and Nicole E. Springstead-Stolte, all of Springstead Bartish Borgula & Luynch, PLLC, and Richard H.S. Sing. The government accused the public servant, Alan Scott Rudo, in a separate proceeding, docketed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii as United States v. Rudo, No. 1:22-cr-00055-JAO (D. Haw.). Rudo is represented by Gurmail Gary Singh. Rudo has pled guilty to conspiring to commit honest services fraud and awaits sentencing. Other than the noted case involving Rudo, Counsel is not aware of any other court proceedings that are directly related to this case. 3