
    Bradley J. STINN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-1930-pr.
    United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
    March 20, 2013.
    David W. Shapiro, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Oakland, CA, for Appellant.
    Samuel P. Nitze, Assistant United States Attorney (Susan Corkery, James G. McGovern, Assistant United States Attorneys, on the brief), for Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellee.
    PRESENT: WALKER, RICHARD C. WESLEY, and CHRISTOPHER F. DRONEY, Circuit Judges.
   SUMMARY ORDER

On August 14, 2012 we granted Petitioner-Appellant Bradley J. Stinn a certificate of appealability to consider whether Skilling v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 2896, 177 L.Ed.2d 619 (2010), affected his conviction. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

Absent a showing of actual innocence, Stinn has procedurally defaulted on his habeas petition. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 621-22, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998). Stinn argues that he is actually innocent because he was convicted under a theory of honest-services fraud that Skilling made constitutionally infirm. We disagree. Following an exhaustive review of the record including Stinn’s indictment, the government’s casein-chief, and the district court’s charge to the jury, we conclude that there is no reasonable possibility that Stinn was convicted under a theory of depriving his company of his honest services. Accordingly, we deny Stinn’s petition for a writ of habe-as corpus.

We have considered all of Stinn’s arguments on appeal and find them to be without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby

AFFIRMED.  