NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 12-1117

_____________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

HAKEEN WILLIS,

 Appellant

On Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

(D. C. No. 2-10-cr-00416-001)

District Judge: Honorable John R. Padova

Submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

on March 7, 2013

Before: SCIRICA, JORDAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: March 15, 2013)

O P I N I O N 

ROTH, Circuit Judge:

Hakeen Willis appeals his conviction of robbery and conspiracy to commit 

robbery under the Hobbs Act. Willis’s sole claim on appeal is that the government failed 

to present sufficient evidence showing a nexus between the robbery and interstate 
2

commerce to support his conspiracy conviction. For the reasons that follow, we will 

affirm the judgment of the District Court.

I. Background1

 1 We write primarily for the parties, who are familiar with the facts of this case. 

Therefore, we will set forth only those facts necessary to our analysis.

Willis was tried and convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and conspiracy to commit 

Hobbs Act robbery in connection with the robbery of three massage parlors in 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence

only as related to his conviction for conspiracy. He claims that the evidence was 

insufficient to prove one of the robberies, the one involving the New World Spa. He 

argues that the jury may have been wrongly influenced by evidence related to that alleged 

robbery when it convicted him of conspiracy. 

At trial, the government presented witnesses who identified Willis and described 

his involvement in that robbery. A security guard testified that he purchased supplies for 

the spa from stores in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. A patron testified that he traveled from 

New Jersey—where he lived and worked—to Philadelphia to receive a massage; 

however, he never received the massage because the robbery ensued shortly after his 

arrival. Additionally, a spa employee testified that the business had a credit card 

machine, although it is not clear whether the machine was working at the time of the 

robbery.
3

II. Discussion

The Hobbs Act criminalizes “any act that in any way or degree obstructs, delays, 

or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by 

robbery or extortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The Hobbs Act defines “commerce” very 

broadly, including all “commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” 18 

U.S.C. § 1951(b)(3). To satisfy the interstate commerce requirement, the government 

need only offer “proof of a de minimis effect on interstate commerce[.]” United States v. 

Walker, 657 F.3d 160, 180 (3d Cir. 2011) (citations and internal quotation marks 

omitted). “Moreover, the effect may be potential, not actual.” United States v. Powell, 

693 F.3d 398, 402 (3d Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). We must reverse Willis’s 

conviction if the evidence presented at trial would be insufficient to allow a rational trier 

of fact to find a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce beyond a reasonable doubt. 

United States v. Clausen, 328 F.3d 708, 711 (3d Cir. 2003).

In Clausen, we held that evidence of a massage parlor servicing customers from 

out of state, employing personnel from out of state, purchasing supplies from out of state, 

advertising in newspapers, and taking payments in cash and by credit card was “more 

than sufficient” to establish the de minimis effect on interstate commerce required by the 

Hobbs Act. Id. at 712. Here, as set out above, we conclude that the government 

presented sufficient evidence to the jury to establish a de minimis effect on interstate 

commerce under the Hobbs Act. 

III. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.