The Honor able My ron H. Bright, United States Circuit J udg e for the Eighth Circuit, sitting * by designation. The Honor able Thoma s A. Varlan, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of 1 Tenne ssee. NO T REC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION File Na me: 08a0742n.06 Filed: De cembe r 4, 2008 No. 06-6065 U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S IX T HC IR C U IT UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA, ) ) Plaintiff-Appellee , ) ) v. ) ) LAJ UAN HARDY, ) ) De fe nd ant- Ap pe lla

nt. ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERND I STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE.

Be for e : M OORE, GRI F F IN , a nd BRIG HT, Ci r c uitJudg e s. * P ER CURIAM
. A ju ryf o u n d a p p e llan t L a

ju a n H a rd y g u ilt yo f

six c o u n ts o f

ro b b e ry , in vi ol at i on of t he H obbs A ct , 18 U
. S. C
. § 1951 ( 2000)
. H ar dychal l enges bot h hi s convi ct i on and hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng t hat ( 1) t he evi dence w as i ns uffi ci ent t o s how t hathi s conducthad a de mi ni m i s eff

ecton i nt er s t at e comm er ce a nd ( 2) t he di s t r i ctcour t cl ear l yer r ed byr efus i ng 1 to g iv e h im a tw o -le v e l o f f e n se -le v e l re d u c tio n f

o r a c c e p ta n c e o f

re sp o n sib ili tyw h e n it det er m i ned hi s s ent ence . H avi ng j ur i s di ct i on under 28 U
. S. C
. § 1291 and 18 U
. S. C
. § 3742,
we a f f i r m.No. 06-6065

U.S. v. Hardy

In his appellate brief, Ha

rdy also argued that his c onvictions should be reve rsed beca use the 2 dis tric t c ourt

imp ro pe rl y

re qu ir e d th at th e g ov e rnme nt p ro ve on ly that hi s c on du c t ha d a

de min imi s e ff e c t on int e rs tate c omm e rc e , rathe r tha n a mor e ri g or ou s “ su

bs tanti a l e ff

e c t” o n i nt erstate commerc e. At ora l argument, Hardy conce ded that this court has repe atedly reje cted this argument and withdre w that argument. We do not, therefor e, conside r that issue in this opinion. -2- BA CK GR OUND I n ear l yJ anuar y2004, H ar dyr obbed s i x conveni enc e stores i n C hat t anooga, T ennes s ee. A ft ercomm i t t i ng t he fi r s t tw o robber i es on J anuar y4, H ar dycal l ed t he D r ug E nf or c e mentA dmi ni s t r a t i on on J a nu a r y8 a nd s c he du l e d a mee t i ng t o c on fe s s hi s c r i mes. D ur i ng t h e e n s u i n g 2 4 h o u r s , Har d y r o b b e d f o u r mor e c o n v e n i e n c e s t o r e s . On J a n u a r y 9, H a rd ym e t w ith la w e n f o rc e m e n t o f

f ic ia ls a n d c o n f

e s s e d h is c ri m e s . In Ju n e 2 0 0 5 , a f

e d e ra l g ra n d ju ryre tu rn e d a n in d ictm e n t ch a rg in g H a rd yw ith six count s of r obber y , i n vi ol at i on of 18 U
. S. C
. § 1951 ( 2000)
. H ar dy pl eade d not gui l t yt o t he char ges a n d tr i al comm ence d i n M ar ch 2006. A t t r i al , H ar dyconce ded t hathe had
comm i t t e d t h e f

t , b u t a r g u e d t h a t h e h a d n o t c o mmi t t e d r o b b e r y b e c a u s e h e d i d n ot ( 1) i nt er fer e w i t h i nt er s t at e comm er ce or( 2) us e ort hr eat en for ce in the co m m i s s i on of t he
cr i m es . A ft er t he j ur y r etur ned gui l t y ver di ct s on al l s i x count s , t he di s t r i ct cour t s ent ence d H a rd yto 2 4 0 m o n th s’ im p riso n m e n t a n d th re e y e a rs o f su p e rv ise d re lea se a n d o rd e re d h im to p a yre s titu tio n . T h is a p p e a l f o llo w s . DI S CU S S I ON I. T h e e v id e n c e w a s s u f f icie n t to su p p o rt th e v e rd ict. 2No. 06-6065

U.S. v. Hardy

Th e Ho bb s Ac t def

ine s “r ob be ry” a s “th e un lawf ul takin g or ob ta ini ng of

pe rs on a l prop e rt

y 3 from the pe rson or in the prese nce of another , ag ainst his will, by means of a ctual or thre atene d forc e, or violence , or fe ar of

injury , immediate or futur e, to his person or proper ty .” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(1) (2000). -3- “W e r evi ew a chal l enge t o t he s uffi ci ency of t he evi dence by cons i dering t he evi dence i n t he l i ght m os t favor abl e t o t he pr os ecut i on t o det er m i ne w het her a r at i onal t r i er of fa ctcoul d have f

ound t hatt he es s ent i al element s of t he cr i m e w er e pr oven bey ond a
r eas onabl e doubt
. ” U

ni t ed St at es v. Spear m an , 1 8 6 F
. 3 d 7 4 3 , 7 4 6 (6th C ir
. 1 9 9 9 ). T h is co u rt
r ever s es a j udgm ent for i ns uffi ci encyof t he evi dence “onl yi f [t he] j udgm enti s not s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al and compet entevi dence upon t he r ecor d as a w hol e. ” U ni t ed St at es v. St one , 7 4 8 F
. 2 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 3 (6th C ir
. 1 9 8 4 ). T he H obbs A ctpr ovi des t hat“[w ] hoeveri n anyw ayor d egre e obs t r uct s , del ay s , or af fe cts co m m erc e o r t h e m o v em en t of a n y a rti cle o r co m m o d it yin co m m erc e, by rob b ery

. . . s hal l be fi ned undert hi s t i t l e ori m pr i s oned notm or e t han t w ent y y ear s , or bot h. ” 18 U
. S
. C
. § 195 1(a) (2000 ). T o prevai l un der t he H ob bs A ct , t herefore, “t he G ov ernm ent m ust pr ove t w o el ement s : ( 1) i nt er fer ence w i t h i nt er s t at e comm er ce ( 2) i n t he cour s e of a
s u b s t a n t i v e c r i m i n a l a c t , ” s u c h a s r o b b e r y. U ni t ed St at es v. O s t r ander , 411 F. 3d 684, 691 3 (6 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). H ar dychal l enges onl yone as pectof t he suff i ci ency of t he evi dence , ar gui ng t hatt he “t es t i m onyr egar di ng a[n] i nt er s t at e nexus i s bes t char act er i zed by i t s vaguene s s and l ack ofNo. 06-6065

U.S. v. Hardy

We rec ognize that we may also revie w the suff

iciency of the evidenc e in the abse nce of a 4 rule 29 motion to preve nt a “manife st misca rriag e ofjustice.” Un ite d S tates v . D av is , 430 F.3d 345, 359 (6 Cir. 2005). But Ha rdy makes no such c laim here
. th -4- su b sta n c e .” H a rd y a ss e rts tha t “ [ n ]o n e o f th e e v id e n c e o f f e re d b y th e G o v e rn m e n t d e a lt i n
a n yw a yw ith th e im p a c t o f th e th e f ts at th e in d iv id u a l sto re s o n [ th e ir] a b ili tyto p a rticip a te i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce. ” A s a n in iti a l m a tter, w e c o n sid e r H a rd y ’s c h a llen g e o f th is iss u e o n lya s it re late s to C o u n ts O n e , T h re e , a n d S ix. Fe d
. R
. C ri m . P
. 2 9 req u ir es a d ef en d an t t o m o v e f

o r a j udgm entof ac qui t t al t o pr es er ve appe l l at e r evi ew of a s uffi ci ency - of- t he- evi dence i s s ue. S e e als o U

ni t ed St at es v. C hance , 3 0 6 F. 3 d 3 5 6 , 3 6 8
- 6 9 ( 6 t h Ci r . 2 0 0 2 )
. Be c a u s e H ar dy
m oved for a j udgm ent of acqui t t al s peci fi cal l y ci t i ng C ount s O ne, T hr ee, and Si x, w e r evi ew onl yt hos e count s fors uffi ci encyof t he evi dence
. S e e id
. 4 T ur ni ng t o t hos e t hr ee c ount s , w e concl ude t hat H ar dy ’ s ar gum entl acks s ubs t ant i al
m er i t . W e obs er ve t hat t he gover nm ent i nt r oduced t es t i m ony fr om empl oy ees of each of t he
s t or es r el at i ng t o C ount s O ne, T hr ee, and Si x . E ac h o f those empl oy ees t es t i fi ed t hatt he part i cularst ore purchased and res old i t em s t hat w ere s hipped o r m anu fact ured i n o t her st at es. T hi s evi denc e i s s u f

f i c i e n t f o r a r a t i o n a l f

a c t f i n d e r t o d e t e r mi n e t h a t Har d y ’ s r o b b e r yh ad atl eas t a de m i ni m i s eff

ecton i nt er s t at e comm er ce. Such eff ectes t abl i s hes a s uffi ci entnexus to in te rs ta te c o m m e rc e . See, e. g. , U n itedS ta tes v . D a v is , 4 7 3 F
. 3 d 6 8 0 , 6 8 3 -8 4 (6 th C ir
. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed St at es v. Turne r , 2 7 2 F
. 3 d 3 8 0 , 3 8 5 n . 2 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 1 ).No. 06-6065

U.S. v. Hardy

-5- I I
. T he di s t r i ctcour t di d not cl ear l yer r ats ent enci ng. H ar dyal so ch al l enges hi s s ent ence , ar gui ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcour t cl ear l yer r ed by deny i ng hi m an ac cept ance - of- r es pons i bi l i t yadj us t m ent . “W e re vi ew t he det er m i nat i on of

w het her a defe ndanthas acc ept ed r es pons i bi l i t yforcl earer r or . ” U n ited S ta tes v . P a u lette , 4 5 7 F
. 3 d 6 0 1 , 6 0 8 (6th C ir
. 2 0 0 6 ). Sent enci ng G ui del i nes § 3E 1. 1 pr ovi des t hat t he offens e l evel s hal l be decr eas ed by tw o le v e ls if

a “ d e f e n d a n t cl e a rl yd e m o n s tr a te s a c c e p ta n c e o f re s p o n s ib ility f

o r h is o f f e n s e .” Sect i on 3E 1. 1’ s appl i cat i on not e 2 pr ovi des t hatt he ac cept ance - of- r es pons i bi l i t yadj us t m ent “i s no t i n t e n d e d t o a p p l y t o a d e f e n d a n t who p u t s t h e g o v e r n me n t t o i t s b u r d e n o f p r oof at trial b yd e n y in g th e e ss e n tial f a c tu a l ele m e n ts o f

g u ilt , is c o n v icte d , an d o n ly th e n a d m its gui l t and expr es s es r emors e. ” U
. S. S. G
. § 3E 1. 1 cmt
. n. 2. B utconvi ct i on byt r i al , “does not aut om at i cal l ypr ecl ude a de fenda nt ” fr om s uch an a dj us t m ent , and i n “r ar e” si t uat i ons , s uch
as “w her e a de fenda nt goes t o t r i al t o as s er t and pr es er ve i s s ues t hat do not r el at e t o fac t ual g u ilt,” th e a d

ju s tm e n t m a yb e a p p ro p ri a te . I d. T he def

endantbear s t he bur den of s how i ng th a t h e h a s a c c e p te d re s p o n s ib ility. P a u lette , 4 5 7 F .3 d a t 6 0 8
. A t se n ten c in g , H a rd y o b jec ted to th e p re se n ten c e -in v e stig a tio n re p o rt, arg u in g th a t it
s houl d have i ncl uded an a cce pt ance - of- r es pons i bi l i t yadj us t m ent . H ar dyar gued t hathe had
acc ept ed r es pons i bi l i t ybeca us e he “ confe s s ed t o t hes e cr i m es pr et r i al ”; en ter ed i nt o aNo. 06-6065

U.S. v. Hardy

-6- s t i pul at i on w i t h t he gover nm entt hat“t hes e off ens es w er e comm i t t ed”; and had nott es t i fi ed. T h e d istric t co u rt o v e rru led H a rd y ’s o b jec tio n , sta tin g th a t [U
. S. S. G
. § 3E 1. 1 cmt . ] not e 2 s t at es t hi s adj us t m en t i s not in ten d e d to a p p ly to a d e f e n d a n t w h o p u ts th e g o v e rn m e n t to its b u rd e n o f

p ro o f a t trial b yd e n y in g th e e ss e n tial f a c tu a l ele m e n ts o f g u ilt
. In th is c a s e , h o w e v e r, w h ich w a s trie d b yth is c o u rt in C hat t anooga, t he def

endantdi d exac t l y t hat
. H e deni ed t hathe i n t e r f e r e d wi t h c o mme r c e a n d / o r u s e d p h y s i c a l f or c e t o s o me ext entand he putt he gover nm entt o i t s bur den of pr oof on t hat o r t h o s e is s u e s . B e c a u se th e re c o rd sh o w s th a t H a rd yd isp u ted a n e lem e n t o f th e o f f e n se s, n a m e ly

w het herhe us ed ort hr eat ened f or ce, t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s deci s i on t o denyH ar dy ’ s r eques t for
an ac cept ance - of- r es pons i bi l i t yadj us t m enti s not cl ear l yer r oneous. A l t hough H ar dyt ook
s om e s t eps t hati ndi cat e t hathe ac cept ed r es pons ibil it y (such a s cont act i ng t he pol i ce a nd st i pu l at i ng t o co m m i t t i ng t heft) , h e n on et heles s di sputed a fact ual el em ent of t he ch arges. T h u s, the s en tenc ing jud g e d id n o t cl ea rl yerr. CO NC L US I ON A c c o rd in g ly, w e a f

f ir m H a rd y ’s c o n v ic tio n s a n d s e n te n c e .