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 conspirators —created, 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 th e question , holding instead that the petitioner's interlocutory appeal did not fit within the collateral order doctrine. Review ing 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 procee dings waste scarce judicial and executive resources and, at bottom, conducting them lac ks common sense?

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?