Proving a bribery deal

1. Whether the District Court erred in denying Mr. Rowe’s motion under Rule 29, Fed. R. Crim. P. to dismiss the bribery and bribery conspiracy charges against him when the prosecution failed to show a quid pro quo. 2. Whether the Court should require organizer-leader enhancements to be calculated in such broadly-based prosecutions by evaluating each participant’s significance to the overall scheme to avoid artificially inflating Petitioner’s federal sentencing guidelines offense level by looking to his actions at the local level in the underlying nationwide drug conspiracy. 3. Whether the motion for a second remand to the District Court presents an extraordinary circumstance such that waiver should not apply when, although the issue was not raised in the opening brief, (1) the remand relates to a criminal defendant’s constitutional rights, (2) the Government had a full and fair opportunity to respond to the motion before briefing commenced, (3) no party moved to preclude the court’s consideration of the request, (4) appellate counsel misread, rather than deliberately disregarded, the court’s order, and (5) no alternative procedural vehicle exists through which the issue could be raised. 4. Whether it was error for the appellate court not to order a remand sua sponte where the evidentiary record is undeveloped and serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of counsel have arisen.