FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P E A LS E LE V EN T HC IRC U IT APRIL21, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK

Ho no ra bleRic ha rd D. Cudahy, Unit e d St ate s Circuit Judg efo r t

heSe venth

Circ uit , * sitti ngby designation. [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 03- 11870

________________________ D. C. Do c k e tNo . 0 1 - 0 0 8 6 9 - CR - J LK U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s VI KA VE R B I T S KA YA , a . k. a . V i c t or i a V e rbi t s ky a. k. a. V i ka R ou ni ck a . k. a . V i c t or i a P a kuk A L E X A N D E R V E R B I T S K Y , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lla n ts .

________________________ A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe S outhe r n D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( A pr i l 21, 2005) B efo re B IR C H , K R A V IT C H an d C U D A H Y , C i rcu i tJu d g es. *One wa s New H ampshire Insuranc e Company, headqua rtere d in New Ha

mpshire, and 1 the other w as State F arm Insuranc e Company, headqua rtere d in I llinois . The c ompany

was c reated to bringRussian dancers and perfor mers to the United States 2 to perfor m and teach dancing . 2 K R A V IT C H , C i rc ui tJudg e: V i ka V e rbi t s ka y a a nd A l e xa nde rV e rbi t s ky appe a l the i rc onvi c t i ons a nd s e nt e nc e s f

orc ons pi r a c y t o obs truc t , de l a y a nd a f f e c ti nt e r s t a t e a nd f

or e i gn c om m e r c e by e xt or t i on i n vi ol a t i on of 18 U . S . C . § 1951( a ) ( “ T he H obbs A c t ” ) a nd for unl aw ful l y obstruct i ng , del ay i ng and aff ec t i ng i nt er st at e a nd fore i gn com m er ce b y e x to r tio n in v io la tio n o f 1 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 5 1 ( a ) & ( b ) ( 2 ) .

I. T he r e l e va ntf

a c t s a nd pr oc e dur a l hi s t or y a r e a s f ol l ow s . S t a ni s l ov K ha z a nov not i f

i e d the F e de r a l B ur e a u of I nve s t i ga t i on ( “ F B I ” ) i n O c t obe rof 2000 th a t h e w a s b e in g e x to r te d b y h is f o r m e rg ir lf

r ie n d V ik a V e rb its k a y a . K h a z a n o v , a R us s i a n i m m i gr a ntnow l i vi ng i n F l or i da , ha d r e c e i ve d a s e tt l e m e ntof appr oxi m a t e l y $1, 000, 000 f r om tw o out - of

- s t a t e i ns ur a nc e c om pa ni e s f ol l ow i ng 1 the tr a gi c de a th of

hi s w i f e A nna , w ho w a s ki l l e d i n a n a ut om obi l e a c c i de nton N o v e m b e r1 5 , 1 9 9 9 . A f te rh e p a id la w y e r s ’ f

e e s a n d s e t u p a tru s t f

u n d f o rh is d a u g h te r , $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 r e m a in e d . H e u s e d a p o r tio n o f th e s e ttle m e n t to in c o rp o r a te G l am ou r I nt ernat i on al P rodu ct i on s. K haza no v al so po ss es se d tw enty- se ven 2 p a in tin g s th a t h is m o th e rh a d tr a n s p o r te d f r o m R u s s ia , w h ic h h e in te n d e d to u s e to3

o p e n a n a r t g a lle r y w h e r e h e w o u ld s e ll R u s s ia n a r tw o r k . V e rbi t s ka y a ha d l i ve d w i th K ha z a nov f r om M a y orJ une of

2000 thr ough S ep t em b er o f 2 0 0 0 , w h en th e rel at i o n sh i p en d ed . D u ri n g th att i m e, V erb i t sk aya be c a m e a w a r e of

K ha z a nov’ s pa i nt i ngs a nd the i ns ur a nc e m one y he r e c e i ve d f r om the s e tt l e m e nt . A f

t e rthe r e l a t i ons hi p e nde d, V e rbi t s ka y a be ga n c a l l i ng K ha z a nov fr equent l y t o ask hi m for m on ey . D uri ng on e tw o-w ee k p er i od , K haza no v rec ei ved e ig h te e n m e s s a g e s f

r o m h e ro n h is a n s w e r in g m a c h in e . V e rb its k a y a th r e a te n e d to t el l th e au th o ri t i es th atK h azan o v h ad rap ed h er i f h e d i d n o tg i v e h er m o n ey. I n A ugus tof

2001, V e rbi t s ka y a c a l l e d K ha z a nov a nd a tt e m pt e d t o m a ke a m e n d s f o rh e rp a s t b e h a v io r . S h e s ta te d th a t s h e h a d s ta r te d a n e w lif e a n d w o u ld l i ke t o be f

r i e nds . V e rbi t s ka y a vi s i t e d K ha z a nov a nd hi s ne w gi r l f r i e nd, O l ga P etroun i na, on A ug ust18 , 20 01 . A tK haza no v’ s r es i dence, V erbi t skay a a dm i re d s e ve r a l pa i nt i ngs a nd a gr a nd pi a no. S he pr opos e d tha ts he he l p K ha z a nov s e l l the p a in tin g s , a n d th e y s c h e d u le d a m e e tin g a t h e rc o n d o m in iu m . O n A u g u s t 2 2 , 2 0 0 1 , K h a z a n o v a n d P e tr o u n in a b r o u g h t f iv e p a in tin g s to V erbi t skay a’ s r es i dence, w here V erbi t skay a i ntrodu ce d V erbi t sky a s apo t ent i al buy e r . P e tr ouni na w e ntw i th V e rbi t s ka y a t o t a ke he rdog f ora w a l k a nd t o ge tthe pai nt i ng s f

rom her c ar . A ft erV erbi t skay a a nd P etroun i na l ef t , V erbi t sky a ss aul t ed K haza no v w i th a go l f c l ub , st abbed h i m i n the arm s w i th a kn i fe , and t hrea t enedVer bitsky g ave K hazanov a slip of paper with the Swiss bank ac count number on it. 3 4 hi m w hi l e hol di ng a gun. V e rbi t s ka y a a nd P e tr ouni na the n r e tur ne d t o the c o n d o m in iu m . P e tr o u n in a o b s e r v e d th e b ru is e s o n K h a z a n o v a n d th e g o lf c lu b in V e rb its k y ’s h a n d . S h e w a s im m e d ia te ly to ld to le a v e th e ap a r tm e n t. W h ile P e tr o u n in a w a ite d f

o rK h a z a n o v in th e lo b b y , V e rb its k a y a jo in e d V e rb its k y in b e a tin g K h a z a n o v w ith th e g o lf c lu b . V erbi t sky a nd V erbi t skay a f orce d K haza no v t o si gn re ce i pt s i nd i ca t i ng that th e p a in tin g s h a d b e e n s o ld to th e m f o r$ 2 ,6 3 0 a n d th a t th e p ia n o h a d b e e n s o ld to the m f or$15, 000. T he y or de r e d K ha z a nov t o ha ve the i t e m s de l i ve r e d t o the m on A ugus t23, 2001. V e rbi t s ky a l s o or de r e d K ha z a nov t o tr a ns f e r$260, 000 t o a S w is s b a n k a c c o u n t. T o e n s u r e h is c o m p lia n c e , V e rb its k y th r e a te n e d to k ill 3 K h a z a n o v ’s p a r e n ts a n d to h a v e h is d a u g h te rr ap e d b y th e R u s s ia n m a f ia if h e d id no tabi de by V erbi t sky’ s dem ands. T hey a l so forc ed K hazano v t o rec ord o n an a udi ot ape tha the ha d r ape d V e rbi t s ka y a . V e rbi t s ka y a ’ s voi c e c oul d be he a r d i n the b ack g ro u n d o f th e t ap e t el l i n g K h azan o v w h att o say. F ol l ow i ng K ha z a nov’ s r e l e a s e f r om V e rbi t s ka y a ’ s r e s i de nc e , he a nd P e tr o u n in a r e p o r te d to th e p o lic e th e th e f t o f th e a r tw o r k a n d th e e x to r tio n o f h is in su ra n ce se tt lem en t m o n ey . K h az an o v an d P etro u n in a r etu rn ed to V erb it sk ay a’s c o n d o m in iu m b u ild in g , a c c o m p a n ie d b y d e te c tiv e s , a n d id e n tif ie d V e rb its k a y a inThe de fensemade a n oral motion to dismi ss the indictment based upon perjury by 4 Khazanov duringthe grand jury proce eding s. Be forethe grand jury, Khazanov denie d having had a relationship with Verbitskaya . Thecourt denied the motion. Khazanov later admitted at trial that the two were involved romantically sixmonths after his wifepassed a way . The instructions re ad as f ollows: “You areinstructed that you may find the re quired 5 e ff e c t up on int e rs tatec omm e rc eha s b e e n p ro ve d if you find beyon d a re a so na bledo ub t th at: (1 ) t hepainting s w e retaken f ro m Sta nis lav K hazan ov and tho sepainting s w e resent f ro m Ru ssi a to be sold in the United States; or (2) money was demanded by

the def endants from Stanisl av Khazanov, and this money was to be tra

nsfer red f rom a ba nk acc ount in the United States to a bank ac count in the country of Switz erla

nd; or (3) that the funds to be taken [from] Stanislav Khazanov ca

me from insura

nce c ompanies outside the state of Florida and were placed in a

n acc ount in the state of F lorida; or (4) Stanislav Khazanov’s B ank of America acc ount was used to do business outside the State of Florida .” 5 the l ob by. D et ec t i ves then p roce eded t o V erbi t skay a’ s c on do m i ni um , i dent i fi ed th e m s e lv e s a s la w e n f

o r c e m e n t o f

f ic e r s , a n d w a ite d f

o rV e rb its k y to o p e n th e d o o r . V erbi t sky tho ug htthe po l i ce w er e m em bers of the R ussi an m af i a a nd shou t ed that he w as “ on e of them . ” W hen V erbi t sky a dm i tt ed the det ec t i ves i nt o the re si dence, th ey fo u n d sev eral p i eces o f artw o rk i n p l ai n v i ew . V erb i t sk y an d V erb i t sk aya w e r e a r r e s t e d a nd l a t e ri ndi c t e d by a f e de r a l gr a nd j ur y f

orvi ol a t i ons of

the H obbs A c t. 4 B ef

ore the ca se proceeded t o tri al , the di stri ctcourthel d a charge c on fe re nce on the gove r nm e nt ’ s pr opos e d j ur y i ns truc t i ons . B oth de f e nda nt s obj e c t e d t o the 5 go vernm ent ’ s def

i ni t i on of the i nt er st at e c om m er ce re qu i re m ent . T he court o v e r ru l e d a l l o b

j e c t i o n s a n d a d o p t e d th e g o v e r n m e n t ’ s p r o p o s e d i n s tru c t i o n s . At the c l os e of

the gove r nm e nt ’ s c a s e , the de f e nda nt s m ove d f

orj udgm e nt s of a c q u itta l, a r g u in g th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t h a d “f a ile d to p r o v id e s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e toAt sentenc ing, V erbitsky contende d that no firea

rm was use d in the commission of the 6 offense and that he did not own a fire arm. Thejudgereje cted this contention and sentence d Ver bitsky under Sec tion 2B3.3 of the F ederal SentencingGuidelines for “other wise using ” a firea rm duringthe commission of the offense. 6 es t abl i sh j uri sdi ct i on of thi s C ou rtt o h ea r these part i cul archar ges . . . . ” T he court di sm i ss ed the m ot i on . A ft erthe defendant s c om pl et ed thei r def ense , they r enew ed the i rm ot i ons f

ora c qui tt a l , w hi c h the c our ta ga i n de ni e d. F ol l ow i ng the c om pl e t i on of

a s e ve n da y tr i a l , the j ur y c onvi c t e d V e rbi t s ky a nd V e rbi t s ka y a on both c ount s . T he j udge s e nt e nc e d V e rbi t s ky t o 120 m onths i n pr i s on a nd V e rbi t s ka y a t o 108 m onths i n pr i s on. 6 II . A. O n app ea l , V erbi t skay a m akes three ar gu m ent s. H erfi rs tar gu m enti s that the di s tr i c tc our te r r e d w he n i ti ns truc t e d the j ur y tha tonl y a “ m i ni m a l ” e f f e c ta nd no ta “ subst ant i al ” e ff

ec ton i nt er st at e c om m er ce w as nece ss ary t o p rove a vi ol at i on of the H ob bs A ct , 18 U . S . C . § 1 95 1(a) . O ur re vi ew of a tri al court ’ s j ury i ns truc t i ons i s l i m i t e d. I f the i ns truc t i ons a c c ur a t e l y r e f l e c tthe l a w , the tr i a l j udge is g iv e n w id e d is c r e tio n a s to th e s ty le a n d w o r d in g e m p lo y e d in th e in s tru c tio n . U n i t ed S ta t es v. Fu l

f o rd , 2 6 7 F .3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . U n d e rth is st andard, “ w e e xam i ne w hether the j ury c harges , consi dere d as aw ho l e, s uf f i c i e nt l y i ns truc t e d the j ur y s o tha tthe j ur or s unde r s t ood the i s s ue s a nd w e r e notThe Eleventh Circuit, in the en bancdecision Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 7 1209 (11th Cir.1981), adopted a s prec edent de cisions of the for mer F ifth Circuit rendered prior 7 m i sl ed. ” I

d. ( c i t i ng C ar t e rv . D e c is i onO ne C or p. , 12 2 F . 3d 99 7, 10 05 (11t h C i r. 1 9 9 7 ) . “W e w ill r e v e r s e th e d is tr ic t c o u r t b e c a u s e o f a n e r r o n e o u s in s tru c tio n o n ly i f w e a re l ef

tw i th a subst ant i al and i nera di cabl e dou btas t o w hether the j ury w as prop er l y gui ded i n i t s del i bera t i on s. ” I d. ( in te r n a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ) . T h e H o b b s A ctp ro v i d es th at“ [w ] h o ev er i n an y w ay o r d eg ree o b stru ct s, d e la y s , o ra f

f e c ts c o m m e r c e o rth e m o v e m e n t o f a n y a r tic le o rc o m m o d ity in c om m e r c e , by r obbe r y ore xt or t i on ora tt e m pt s orc ons pi r e s s o t o do . . . s ha l l be f i n e d u n d e rth i s t i t l e o ri mp r i s o n e d n o tmo r e th a n tw e n ty y e a r s , o rb o th . ” 1 8 U . S. C. § 1951( a ) . T he A c tde f i ne s c om m e r c e a s be i ng “ c om m e r c e w i thi n the D i s tr i c tof C ol um bi a, or any T erri t ory or P osse ss i on of the U ni t ed S t at es ; al l com m er ce be tw e e n a ny poi nti n a S t a t e , T e r r i t or y , P os s e s s i on, orthe D i s tr i c tof C ol um bi a a nd a n y p o in t o u ts id e th e r e o f ; a ll c o m m e r c e b e tw e e n p o in ts w ith in th e s a m e S ta te thr ough a ny pl a c e out s i de s uc h S t a t e ; a nd a l l othe rc om m e r c e ove rw hi c h the U n ite d S ta te s h a s ju r is d ic tio n .” I d. § 1 9 5 1 ( b ) ( 3 ) . T hi s C i r c ui tl ong ha s he l d tha tthe j ur i s di c t i ona l r e qui r e m e ntunde rthe H ob bs A ctca n b e m etsi m pl y by s ho w i ng thatthe offens e had a “ m i ni m al ” e ff ec t o n c o m m e r c e . U

ni t e d Stat e s v . J

ac k s on , 74 8 F . 2d 15 35 , 15 37 (11t h C i r. 19 84 ); se e a l so U n i t ed S ta t es v. Su m m ers , 5 9 8 F . 2 d 4 5 0 , 4 5 4 (5 th C i r. 1 9 7 9 ). V erb i t sk aya 7to October 1, 1981. In Lopez , th eSup remeCourt “ identi fi e d thre ebroad c ate g orie s o f ac tiv ity that Co ngre ss 8 may regulate under

its commercepower .” Lopez , 5 14 U. S. at 55 8. F ir st, Congre ss m ay re gulate the “use ” of thechanne ls of interstate c ommerce . Id. Second, Congress may regulate “the instrumentalities” of interstatecommerc e. Id. Third, Congress may regulate those activities which “substantially

aff ect”interstate c ommerce . Id. at 558-59. Verbitskaya argues that the Hobbs Act falls under the third categ ory . 8 a r g u e s th a t U

ni t ed Stat es v. L op ez , 514 U . S . 549, 115 S . C t . 1624, 131 L . E d. 2d 626 (199 5) al t er ed thi s l on g-st andi ng po si t i on and, thatthere fore , the di stri ctcourt e r r e d . S p e c if

ic a lly , V e rb its k a y a c o n te n d s th a t L o p ez e xpr e s s l y r e qui r e d the 8

“ subst ant i al ” e ff

ec t s t es tt o app l y t o C on gres si on al l egi sl at i on i nv ol vi ng cr i m i nal st atut es i n are as tra di t i on al l y l ef tt o the st at es . V erbi t skay a f urther c on t ends that U ni t e d Stat e s v . Mor r is on , 529 U . S . 598, 120 S . C t . 1740, 146 L . E d. 2d 658 ( 2000) al so re qu i re s thi s C i rc ui tt o app l y the subst ant i al ef fe ct s t es tfor H ob bs A ct v io la tio n s . O ur prece denti s c l ea r, ho w ever , that“ even aft er L o p ez a c on vi ct i on [und er the ] H obbs A c t. . . r e qui r e s pr oof of a m i ni m a l , nots ubs t a nt i a l , e f f e c ton c o m m e r c e ” a n d th a t “Mor r is on d o e s n o t a lte ro u rH o b b s A c t p r e c e d e n t.” U ni t ed Stat e s v . G r ay , 26 0 F . 3d 12 67 , 12 74 (11t h C i r. 20 01 ). T he G ra y c ou rtre as on ed tha tunl i ke the G uns F r e e S c hool A c ta ti s s ue i n L op ezan d th e V i o l en ce A g ai n st W om e n A c ta ti s s ue i n Mor r is on , “ the H ob bs A ctcont ai ns an expl i ci tj uri sdi ct i on al el em entconfi rm i ng thatthe A ctw as i nd ee d p as se d p ursuantt o C on gres s’ s pow er9

t o regul at e i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” I d. ; see a l so U n i t ed S ta t es v. C a st l eb erry , 116 F .3 d 1 3 8 4 , 1 3 8 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ) . T h o u g h V e rb its k a y a u r g e s u s to c h a n g e th is lo n g - s ta n d in g p o s itio n , w e d e c lin e to d o s o . V e rbi t s ka y a ne xta r gue s tha tthr e e of the gove r nm e nt ’ s f

ourthe or i e s of

how th e e x to r tio n a f

f e c te d in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e w e r e le g a lly in s u f f ic ie n t a n d th a t, there fore she i s e nt i t l ed t o a new tri al because the j ury onl y r eturned a general verdi ct . U nd er G ri

f f i n v. U ni t ed Stat es , 502 U . S . 46, 58- 59, 112 S . C t . 466, 116 L .E d .2 d 3 7 1 ( 1 9 9 1 ) , a g e n e r a l v e r d ic t c a n n o t b e s u s ta in e d if a n y o f th e p o s s ib le b a s e s o f c o n v ic tio n w e r e le g a lly e r r o n e o u s . See a l so , Zant v . St e phe ns , 4 6 2 U . S. 86 2, 88 1, 10 3 S . C t . 27 33 , 27 45 , 77 L . E d. 2d 23 5 (19 83 ) ( “ i f the j ury w as i nstruct ed th ati tco u l d rel y o n an y o f tw o o r m o re i n d ep en d en tg ro u n d s, an d o n e o f th o se g r o u n d s is [ le g a lly ] in s u f f ic ie n t, b e c a u s e th e v e r d ic t m a y h a v e r e s te d e x c lu s iv e ly o n th e in s u f

f ic ie n t g r o u n d ” r e v e r s a l is r e q u ir e d ) . T he di stri ctcourti nstruct ed the j ury thati tcoul d fi nd the re qu i re d eff ec t upon i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ba s e d on a ny one of the gove r nm e nt ’ s f

ol l ow i ng f

our the or i e s : ( 1) tha tde f

e nda nt s ’ e xt or t i on of

K ha z a nov’ s pa i nt i ngs , w hi c h w e r e s e nt f r o m R u s s ia , p r e v e n te d K h a z a n o v f r o m s e llin g th e p a in tin g s in h is a r t g a lle r y ; ( 2 ) mo n e y th e d e f

e n d a n t s d e ma n d e d f

r o m K h a z a n o v w a s t o b e tr a n s f e r r e d f r o m a U ni t e d S t a t e s ba nk a c c ountt o a S w i s s ba nk a c c ount ; ( 3) the m one y K ha z a novVerb its ka ya c on c e de s th at th e or

y tw o w a s p roperly

pre sente d at trial. See U nited States 9 v. Kaplan , 171 F.3d 1351, 1355 ( 11th Cir. 1999) (en ba nc) (upholding a

defendant’s convic tion fo r c on sp ira c y

to v iol atetheHobb s A c t ba se d o n evide nc ethat th ec on sp ira c y re quire d at le a st one tra nsaction betwe en F lorida and Pana ma). 10 w oul d ha ve us e d t o pa y the e xt or t i ona t e de m a nds w a s de r i ve d f r om the s e tt l e m e nt i n h i s w i fe ’ s w rong ful death l aw sui tw hi ch ca m e f rom an ou t -of- st at e i nsurance c o m p a n y ; o r( 4 ) th e m o n e y K h a z a n o v w o u ld h a v e u s e d to p a y th e e x to r tio n a te de m a nds w a s be i ng m a i nt a i ne d by K ha z a nov i n a ba nk a c c ounttha tK ha z a nov u s e d to e n g a g e in in te r s ta te b u s in e s s . V e rb its k a y a c o n te n d s th a t th e o r ie s o n e , th r e e a n d f o u rw e r e n o t p r o p e r ly subm i tt ed t o the j ury. S peci fi ca l l y, V erbi t skay a c on t ends thatthese three theori es 9 do notf i tthe t e s tf

or m ul a t e d i n U

ni t e d Stat e s v . C ol l i ns , 40 F . 3d 95 , 10 0 (5t h C i r. 1994) , w hi c h s he c l a i m s thi s C i r c ui ta dopt e d i n U ni t e d Stat e s v . D i az , 248 F . 3d 10 65 , 10 84 -85 (11 th C i r. 20 01 ). U nd erthi s t es t , ext ort i on di re ct ed t ow ar d an in d iv idu a l vi ol at es the H ob bs A cton l y i f: (1) the ac t s depl et e the as se t s of a n i ndi vi dua l w ho i s di r e c t l y a nd c us t om a r i l y e nga ge d i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ; ( 2) the ac t s c ause or cr ea t e the l i kel i ho od thatthe i nd i vi du al w i l l depl et e the as se t s of a n e nt i ty i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e ; or( 3) the num be rof i ndi vi dua l s vi c t i m i z e d orthe s u m a t s ta k e is s o la r g e th a t th e r e w ill b e s o m e c u m u la tiv e e f f e c t o n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . I

d. T ho ug h w e use thi s t es tas a gui del i ne, w e not e thatthi s C i rc ui thasDespite the f act that the Diaz c ourt

us e d this t e st, wehavec ontin ue d tostre ss a

fac t- 10 specificinquiry

into the directne ss and likely extent of any

impact on interstate c ommerce . 248 F.3d at 1084-85. Only

eight months after Diaz was published, this Court decided United States v. Carcione , 272 F.3d 1297, 1301 n.6 ( 11th Cir. 2001), which re iterate d our long -standing pre c e dent t

hat “ in de terminingwh e ther t hereis a minimal e ff

e c t on c omm e rc e , e a c h c a semus t be dec ided on its own fac ts,” thereby reje cting“re strictive” relianceon the Collins test.

11 n o t e x p r e s s ly a d o p te d th e F if th C ir c u it’s te s t. 10 U n d e rth e f

ir s t th e o r y , i.e . th e o b s tru c tio n o f K h a z a n o v ’s a b ility to s e ll h is pa i nt i ngs i n i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e , V e rbi t s ka y a a r gue s tha tthe pa i nt i ngs w e r e not ow ned b y a n ent i ty e ng aged i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce no r w as K haza no v an i nd i vi du al w ho w as “ di re ct l y a nd cust om ar i l y e ng aged i n i nt er st at e c om m er ce . ” S peci fi ca l l y, V erbi t skay a c on t ends thatthe pai nt i ng s w er e K haza no v’ s per sonal prop erty a nd w er e hun g i n h i s per sonal re si dence. U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tthe r e w a s a m pl e e vi de nc e f or th e ju r y to f

in d th a t th e th e f

t o f th e p a in tin g s in te r f

e r e d w ith th e irp o te n tia l s a le in to i nt er st at e c om m er ce . K haza no v al re ady had i ncorpo ra t ed a busi ness and p l anned to b u ild a n a r t g a lle r y in o r d e rto s e ll h is p a in tin g s . V e rb its k a y a tw ic e o f f e r e d to he l p K ha z a nov s e l l hi s pa i nt i ngs a nd tha tw a s i nde e d hi s i nt e nt i on on the da y of the ext ort i on . T hu s, un der the fi rs tpron g o f the C o l l i n s te s t, K h a z a n o v w a s d ir e c tly e n g a g e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e , a n d th e lo s s o f th e p a in tin g s d ir e c tly d e p le te d h is a s s e ts . U nd erthe thi rd theory, the di stri ctcourtperm i tt ed the j ury t o fi nd an ef fe ct12

on i nt er st at e c om m er ce i f i tfoun d thatthe m on ey ext ort ed by the appel l ant s w as tran sferred t o K h azan o v fro m o u t -o f-st at e i n su ran ce co m p an i es. V erb i t sk aya a r g u e s th a t th is th e o r y w a s in s u f f ic ie n t b e c a u s e o n c e K h a z a n o v d e p o s ite d h is m o n e y in to a p e r s o n a l b a n k a c c o u n t, th e f u n d s lo s t a n y p r e v io u s in te r s ta te c h a r a c te r . E x to r tio n o f

m o n e y o b ta in e d in in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e a f f e c ts in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . Se e U

ni t e d Stat e s v . Fabi an , 312 F . 3d 550, 556 ( 2d C i r . 2002) ( hol di ng thata “ robb ery thatspec i fi ca l l y t ar get s al ar ge, di sc re etsum of m on ey deri ved f r o m in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e a f f e c ts in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e ” ) ; se e al so U ni t ed Stat es v. Mills , 20 4 F . 3d 66 9, 67 2 (6t h C i r. 20 00 ) ( i n an ext ort i on ca se , the re qu i si t e e ff ec t on i nt er st at e c om m er ce i s m etw here a “ re al i st i c probabi l i ty thatbri be m on ey wo u l d b e b o r r o we d f

r o m a c o m p a n y e n g a g e d i n i n t e r s t a t e c o m m e r c e ” wa s s h o wn a n d th e d e f

e n d a n t h a d “a c tu a l k n o w le d g e o f th e in te r s ta te c h a r a c te ro f th e f u n d s ” ) . H e r e , V e rbi t s ka y aha d a c tua l know l e dge tha tK ha z a nov ha d r e c e i ve d a l a r ge di s c r e e ts um of

m one y f r om out - of

- s t a t e i ns ur a nc e c om pa ni e s . I n f a c t , the a m ount he w a s t ol d t o w i r e t o the S w i s s a c c ountw a s the s a m e a m ounts he ha d l e a r ne d he r e ta in e d f

r o m th e s e ttle m e n t. T h u s , th e th ir d th e o r y w a s le g a lly s u f f ic ie n t. U nde rthe f

i na l the or y , V e rbi t s ka y a a r gue s tha tthe f a c ttha tK ha z a nov ke pt hi s m one y i n a ba nk w i th i nt e r s t a t e t i e s doe s notm e a n tha tthe a tt e m pt e d e xt or t i on af fe ct ed i nt er st at e c om m er ce . V erbi t skay a’ s a rgum enti s m i spl ac ed. T he di stri ct13

c o u r t d id n o t c h a r g e th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t c o u ld p r o v e a n e f f e c t o n in te r s ta te com m er ce si m pl y by provi ng thatthe bank had t i es t o i nt er st at e c om m er ce ; ra ther, the c our ti ns truc t e d tha tthe j ur y c oul d c onvi c ti f K ha z a nov’ s ow n ba nk a c c ount w as “ used t o d o b usi ness ou t si de the st at e of F l ori da. ” See U ni t ed Stat es v. B e n g a li , 1 1 F. 3 d 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 1 2 ( 4 th Ci r . 1 9 9 3 ) ( c o n c l u d i n g th a ta n e x t o r t i o n s c h e me a f f e c t e d i n t e s t a t e c o mme r c e w h e n “ mo n e y . . . u s e d t o p a y . . . e x t o r t i o n e r s c a me f r om a ba nk a c c ountus e d by a bus i ne s s e nga ge d i n i nt e r s t a t e a nd f or e i gn com m er ce ”) . K haza no v u se d h i s bank accountt o st arthi s busi ness w hi ch i nv ol ved p a y m e n ts to c o n ta c ts o u ts id e F lo r id a . T h u s , h e w a s d ir e c tly e n g a g e d in o u t- o f - s ta te b u s in e s s a n d th e f

o u r th th e o r y w a s le g a lly s u f f ic ie n t. W e c on c l ud e tha ta l l f

ou rthe or i e s w e r e l e ga l l y s uf f i c i e nt . U nd er G r iffin , a g e n eral v erd i ct g i v en b y a tri al co u rt can b e su st ai n ed i f n o n e o f th e p o s s ib le the or i e s s ub m i t t ed t o the j ur y w e r e l e ga l l y e r r one ous . 502 U . S . a t58- 59. T h e r e f o r e , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in s tru c tio n s d id n o t v io la te th e c o m m e r c e c la u s e . F i na l l y , V e rbi t s ka y a a r gue s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tc om m i tt e d pl a i n e r r orby fa i l i ng t o requi re a unani m ou s ver di cton the go vernm ent ’ s f ou r a l t ernat i ve theori es on ho w i nt er st at e c om m er ce w as af fe ct ed by the ext ort i on i n thi s c as e. T he di stri ct c o u r t d id n o t r e q u ir e th e ju r y to a g r e e u n a n im o u s ly o n w h ic h th e o r y o rth e o r ie s it w as re l yi ng for i t s ver di ct . T ho ug h V erbi t skay a di d n otre qu es ta s peci alIn Schad, the Supreme Court he ld that a conviction under instructions that did not 11 re quirethejur

y to agre eon

on eof thealtern ativ ethe orie s o f p reme dit ate d a nd fe lony-m urder did not deny due proc ess. 501 U.S. at 644-45. 14 una ni m i ty i ns truc t i on, V e rbi t s ka y a c l a i m s tha tthe di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f a i l ur e t o i s s ue the i ns truc t i on sue s

po nt e de pr i ve d he rof

he rS i xth A m e ndm e ntr i ghtt o a u n a n im o u s ju r y a n d w a s p la in e r r o ru n d e rF e d .R .C r im .P . 5 2 ( b ) . I n s u p p o r t o f th is c ont e nt i on, s he c i t e s t o U ni t e d Stat e s v . G i

ps on , 55 3 F . 2d 45 3, 45 8 (5t h C i r. 19 77 ), w h ic h h e ld th a t w h e r e e n tir e ly d if f e r e n t a lte r n a tiv e c o n c e p tu a l g r o u p in g s a n d f a c ts a r e a lle g e d to s u p p o r t a s in g le c r im e , th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t r e q u ir e s u n a n im ity r e ga r di ng the s pe c i f

i c the or y r e l i e d upon by the j ur y t o r e a c h i t s ve r di c ta nd the di stri ctcourtm usti nstructthe j ury thati tm ustun ani m ou sl y a gree on w hi ch theory a n d w h ic h s p e c if

ic f a c tu a l a c tu s r e u s s u p p o r ts th e v e r d ic t. G i ps on w a s d is c r e d ite d b y th e S u p r e m e C o u r t’s 1 9 9 1 d e c is io n in Sc h a d v . A r i z ona , 501 U . S . 624, 111 S . C t . 2491, 115 L . E d. 2d 555 ( 1991) . I n Sc had , the 11 S up re m e C ou rtno t ed: “ [w ] e a re no tpers uaded t hatthe G i ps on ap p r o a c h r e a lly a n s w e r s th e q u e s tio n , h o w e v e r . A lth o u g h th e c la s s if ic a tio n o f

a lte r n a tiv e s in to

‘ di s t i nc tc onc e ptua l gr oupi ngs ’ i s a w a y t o e xpr e s s a j udgm e nta boutthe l i m i t s of p e r m is s ib le a lte rn a tiv e s , th e n o tio n is to o in d e te r m in a te to p r o v id e c o n c r e te g u id a n c e to c o u r ts f

a c e d w ith v e r d ic t s p e c if ic ity q u e s tio n s .” 5 0 1 U .S . a t 6 3 5 ; se e a l so U ni t e d Stat e s v . Sande rs on , 96 6 F . 2d 18 4, 18 7 (6t h C i r. 19 92 ) ( st at i ng thatVer bitskaya claims that the Supreme Court did not completely overr ule Gipson by 12 arguingthat tw o E le venth Circ uit de c isi on s ma

kec le ar t hat Gipson is stil l valid and binding. Ver bitskaya cites to United States v. Bobo , 344 F.3d 1076 ( 11th Cir. 2003) and United States v. Adkinson , 135 F.3d 1363 ( 11th Cir. 1998). In Bobo , the cour t relied upon Gipson i nre v er s i n g a conviction for thedistrict court’s failure to require the “ jury to unanimously

agreeon which overt act” c onstitut ed the alleg ed criminal scheme. 344 F .3d at 1085. In Adkinson , this court relied upon Gipson to find that the district court committed plain er ror in failing to su a s

po nte instruct the jury

that they must unanimously

agreeon which scheme constituted bank fraud. 135 F.3d at 1377-78. Both of these c ases, however, c oncer ned claims by

the def endants that the languag e of thecharg ing c ount in the ind ic tm e nt was insuffic ient. The issue of whether the indictment was suffic ient was not pre sent in this case. 15 Sc had re j ec t ed the G i

ps on anal ys i s) . T here fore , w e do n otfol l ow the G i ps on 12 approach i n thi s c as e a nd w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ctcourtdi d n otneed t o i nstruct th e ju r y to u n a n im o u s ly a g r e e o n w h ic h th e o r y s u p p o r te d th e v e r d ic t. B . W e now tur n t o V e rbi t s ky ’ s s e ve n a r gum e nt s m a de on appe a l . F i r s t , he a r g u e s th a t th e r e w a s in s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d to s u p p o r t th e ju r y ’s v e r d ic t. W he the rs uf

f i c i e nte vi de nc e w a s pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l t o s uppor tV e rbi t s ky ’ s H obbs A c tc onvi c t i ons i s a que s t i on of l a w s ubj e c tt o de nov o r e v i e w. U ni t ed Stat es v. Kel l er , 916 F . 2d 628, 632 ( 11th C i r . 1990) . W e r e vi e w the s uf f i c i e nc y of

the e vi de nc e t o de t e r m i ne w he the ra r e a s ona bl e j ur y c oul d ha ve c onc l ude d tha tthe e v id e n c e e s ta b lis h e d V e rb its k y ’s g u ilt b e y o n d a r e a s o n a b le d o u b t. T h e e v id e n c e is vi ew ed i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the go vernm entand al l re as on abl e i nfer ence s a n d c r e d ib ility c h o ic e s a r e m a d e in th e g o v e r n m e n t’s f a v o r . U ni t ed Stat es v. C ar c i one , 2 7 2 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 , 1 3 0 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ; U ni t e d Stat e s v . J

ohns on , 71316

F .2 d 6 5 4 , 6 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ) . V e rbi t s ky f

i r s ta r gue s tha tthe r e w a s i ns uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e t o pr ove tha the w as i nv ol ved i n a conspi ra cy w i th h i s f orm erw i fe t o p l otand t o con spi re t o ext ort fr om K haza no v h i s val uabl e posse ss i on s a nd a l ar ge sum of m on ey . “ T o p rove a H obbs A c tc ons pi r a c y unde r18 U . S . C . § 1951, the gove r nm e ntm us tpr ove tha t( 1) tw o o rm o r e p e r s o n s a g r e e d to c o m m it a r o b b e r y o re x to r tio n e n c o m p a s s e d w ith in the H obbs A c t ; ( 2) the de f e nda ntkne w of

the c ons pi r a t or i a l goa l ; a nd ( 3) the d e f e n d a n t v o lu n ta r ily p a r tic ip a te d in h e lp in g to a c c o m p lis h th e g o a l.” U ni t ed S ta te s v . P r in g le , 35 0 F . 3d 11 72 , 11 76 (11t h C i r. 20 03 ). A H ob bs A ctconspi ra cy ca n b e proved b y s ho w i ng a p o te n tia l im p a c t on i nt er st at e c om m er ce . See U ni t ed S ta te s v . Fa r r e ll , 877 F . 2d 870, 875 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ( c ons pi r a c y e s t a bl i s he d by pr oof of a pot e nt i a l i m pa c ton i nt e r s t a t e c om m e r c e i n a n e xt or t i on- ki dnappi ng pl ot ). K haza no v and P etroun i na’ s t es t i m on y a ttri al es t abl i shed thatV erbi t sky w as i nvol ve d i n a c ons pi r a c y w i th V e rbi t s ka y at o c om m i te xt or t i on. T he t e s t i m ony s how e d tha tV e rbi t s ky a nd V e rbi t s ka y a pl a nne d t o e xt or tm one y f r om K ha z a nov by l ur i ng hi m t o V e rbi t s ka y a ’ s c ondom i ni um w i th hi s pa i nt i ngs a nd the n f or c i ng hi m t o s i gn f

a ul ty r e c e i pt s a nd t o a gr e e t o w i r e m one y t o V e rbi t s ky ’ s S w i s s ba nk a c c o u n t. I n o r d e rto a c c o m p lis h th is , V e rb its k y s ta b b e d K h a z a n o v w ith a k n if e , h it17

hi m i n the spi ne w i th a go l f c l ub and t hrea t ened t o h ave hi s m other a nd daug ht er r ape d. V e rbi t s ka y a kne w of the s e tt l e m e nta w a r d tha tK ha z a nov ha d r e c e i ve d f r om h is w if e ’s d e a th , a n d V e rb its k y to o k a d v a n ta g e o f th is in f o r m a tio n in o r d e rto ext ortthe m on ey fr om K haza no v. T hu s, al l three el em ent s of c on spi ra cy w er e m et h e r e . V e rb its k y a ls o c h a lle n g e s h is c o n v ic tio n f o re x to r tio n u n d e rth e H o b b s A c t. H e a vers thatthe evi dence pres ent ed attri al di d n otsupp ortthe j ury’ s ver di ct . In c o n tr a s t to V e rb its k a y a ’s c la im , V e rb its k y c o n c e d e s th a t u n d e rE le v e n th C ir c u it pr e c e de nt , i n or de rt o pr ove a H obbs A c tvi ol a t i on w he r e e xt or t i on oc c ur s , the gove r nm e ntonl y ne e ds t o pr ove tha tthe e xt or t i on ha d a “ m i ni m a l e f f e c t ” on in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . U n ite d S ta te s v . W

o o dr u ff , 29 6 F . 3d 10 41 , 10 49 (11t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ) . N e v e r th e le s s , V e rb its k y c la im s th a t th e g o v e r n m e n t d id n o t m e e t e v e n th is m i ni m a l bur de n. F ors uppor t , he c i t e s t o U n i t ed S ta t es v. Fro st , 77 F . 3d 1319, 13 20 (11t h C i r. 19 96 ) ( m odi f i e d on othe rgr ounds , 13 9 F . 3d 85 6 (11 th C i r. 19 98 )) i n w hi c h the c ourthe l d tha te xt or t i on of a c i ty c ounc i l m e m be r , e ve n though the c ity c o u n c il its e lf

a f f e c te d c o m m e r c e , w o u ld n o t h a v e a m in im a l e f f e c t o n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . T he Fr o s t ca se i s di st i ng ui shabl e f rom the ca se sub j ud i ce . I n Fro st , there w a s n o e v id e n c e “th a t th e r e s ig n a tio n o f o n e m e m b e ro f

a s ix - m e m b e rc ity c o u n c ilAdditionally , false te stimony before the grand jury

justifies dismi ssal of an indictment 13 if the false testimony

results from “prosecutorial misconduct” that c auses prejudice to the defendant. Bank of Nova Scotia v. U nited States , 487 U.S. 250, 251, 108 S.C t. 2369, 2371, 101 L .Ed.2d 228 (1998). When Khazanov testified in front of the grand jury the prosecution did not kn owthat th is t e stimony

wa s f alse . A s so on

a s th eg ov e rnment b e c ameawa reof thefalse testimony , the per

jury was brought to the attention of the cour t. Mo re ov e r, Kh azan ova dmitte d at trial th at hehad li e d a bo ut his re latio ns hipwi th 14 Ver bitskaya and w as cross-examined ext ensively on the subject. 18 w ou l d h ave i m pact ed the cont i nu i ng bu si ness of thatgo verni ng bo dy. ” I d. a t 1 3 2 0 . In co n tras t, h er e V erb it sk y’s e x to rtio n o f K h az an o v d irec tl y a ff ec ted K h az an o v ’s a b ility to s e ll h is p a in tin g s th r o u g h in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e a n d u s e h is m o n e y f o rh is R u s s ia n d a n c e b u s in e s s . See di s c us s i on i nf r a P a r tA . T hus , the gove r nm e nt s u b m itte d s u f

f ic ie n t e v id e n c e to p r o v e a m in im a l e f f e c t o n in te r s ta te c o m m e r c e . S ec on d, V erbi t sky a rgues thatthe i nd i ctm entshou l d h ave been di sm i ss ed d u e to p r e s e n ta tio n o f

f a ls e te s tim o n y to th e g r a n d ju r y a n d th a t th e r e f o r e , h is c onvi c t i ons m us tbe va c a t e d. W e r e ve r s e a gr a nd j ur y i ndi c tm e ntw he n the e r r or “s u b s ta n tia lly in f

lu e n c e d th e g r a n d ju r y ’s d e c is io n to in d ic t, o r[ w h e n ] th e r e is gr a ve doubttha tthe de c i s i on t o i ndi c tw a s f r e e f r om s uc h s ubs t a nt i a l i nf l ue nc e of such vi ol at i on s. ” U

n ite d S ta te s v . V

a lle jo , 29 7 F . 3d 11 54 , 11 65 (11t h C i r. 20 02 ). 13 V e rbi t s ky c ont e nds tha tK ha z a nov’ s t e s t i m ony tha the ha d ne ve rha d a se x u al re lati o n sh ip w ith V erb it sk ay a s u b stan ti ally in flu en ce d th e g ra n d ju ry ’s d eci si o n t o i n d i ctV erb i t sk y an d V erb i t sk aya. W e co n cl u d e th atK h azan o v ’ s fal se t e s t i m ony c onc e r ne d a c ol l a t e r a l m a tt e r , notthe f a c t s of the de f e nda nt ’ s e xt or t i on. 1419

T h e r e f o r e , th e r e w a s n o t a s u b s ta n tia l lik e lih o o d th a t th e g r a n d ju r y w a s u n d u ly in f lu e n c e d b y K h a z a n o v ’s te s tim o n y . V erbi t sky’ s thi rd ar gu m enti s thatthe prosecut i on engaged i n m i sc on du ct du ri ng tri al . D uri ng op eni ng ar gu m ent s a ttri al , the prosecut or re veal ed t o the j ury tha tV e rbi t s ky ha d t ol d the pol i c e w he n the y c a m e t o a r r e s thi m tha the w a s “ one of th em ” an d “ p arto f th e R u ssi an m o b . ” V erb i t sk y cl ai m s th atth i s w as a m is s ta te m e n t o f

w h a t w o u ld b e s a id la te ra t tr ia l. T h e d e f e n s e d id n o t c o n te m p o r a n e o u s ly o b je c t to th is s ta te m e n t a t tr ia l. T h u s , w e r e v ie w th e p r o p r ie ty o f th e g o v e r n m e n t’s s ta te m e n t f o rp la in e r r o r . U ni t e d Stat e s v . N

e w ton , 4 4 F .3 d 9 1 3 , 9 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ) . A n e r r o ris p la in o n ly i f i ti s cl ear an d o b v i o u s an d affects a defen d an t ’ s su b st an t i al ri g h t s. John son v. U ni t ed Stat es , 5 2 0 U .S . 4 6 1 , 4 6 7 , 1 1 7 S .C t. 1 5 4 4 , 1 5 4 9 , 1 3 7 L .E d .2 d . 7 1 8 ( 1 9 9 7 ) . A g o v er n m en t w itn es s d id later tes ti fy th at V erb it sk y m ad e th e s tatem en t “ I a m o n e o f

y o u ,” r e f

e r r in g to th e m o b , w h e n th e p o lic e k n o c k e d o n h is d o o r . T he r e f or e , w e c onc l ude tha tthe pr os e c ut or ’ s s t a t e m e ntdoe s notr i s e t o the l e ve l of p la in e r r o r . V e rbi t s ky a l s o c l a i m s tha tthe pr os e c ut orvouc he d f orhi s w i tne s s dur i ng ope ni ng a r gum e nt s w he n he t ol d the j ur y tha tK ha z a nov ha d l i e d a tthe i ndi c tm e nt butw oul d t e l l the m the truth a ttr i a l . T he pr os e c ut ors a i d i n hi s ope ni ng s t a t e m e ntThe prose cutor spec ifically said, “Can the de fenseexplain these things? We have.” 15 20 th a t K h a z a n o v w o u ld n o w te ll th e ju r y th e tru th a b o u t h is p r e v io u s r e la tio n s h ip w i th V erbi t skay a. A ft erthe defense obj ec t ed t o thi s a ss ert i on , the courtexpl ai ned t o the j ur y tha t“ a l a w y e rc a nnotvouc h f orhi s w i tne s s a tthi s poi nt . ” T he n the p r o s e c u to rr e p h r a s e d h is s ta te m e n t a n d to ld th e ju r y th a t K h a z a n o v w o u ld a d m it to h a v in g a n a f

f a irw ith V e rb its k a y a . In re vi ew i ng thi s c l ai m of prosec ut ori al m i sc on du ct , w hi ch w as pres erved f orappe a l , w e a s s e s s ( 1) w he the rthe c ha l l e nge d c om m e nt s w e r e i m pr ope ra nd ( 2) if s o , w h e th e rth e y p r e

ju d ic ia lly a f

f e c te d th e s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts o f th e d e f e n d a n t. U n i t ed S ta t es v. C a stro , 8 9 F .3 d 1 4 4 3 , 1 4 5 0 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 6 ). T h e p ro se cu to r’s com m ent s w er e notbase d o n p er sonal op i ni on bu tup on the evi dence he expect ed t o, a nd di d i n f

a c t , pr e s e nta ttr i a l . T hus , w e c onc l ude tha tthe c om m e nt s di d not p r e ju d ic ia lly a f

f e c t V e rb its k y ’s s u b s ta n tia l r ig h ts . V e rbi t s ky f

ur the rc ont e nds tha tthe pr os e c ut or ’ s c om m e nt s dur i ng c l os i ng a r gum e nt s r i s e t o the l e ve l of pl a i n e r r or . V e rbi t s ky poi nt s t o c om m e nt s the prosec ut or m ade a gai n abo utV erbi t sky’ s c on nect i on s w i th the R ussi an m af i a, c om m e nt s a bouthow K ha z a nov w a s f or c e d t o r e c or d a s t a t e m e ntde c l a r i ng tha the r ap e d V e rb its k a y a , a n d r e f e r e n c e s to V e rb its k y ’s f a ilu r e to te s tif

y . V e rb its k y d id 15 n o t o b je c t to th e s e c o m m e n ts a t tr ia l, a n d th e r e f o r e w e r e v ie w th e m f

o rp la in e r r o r .21

N e w ton , 4 4 F .3 d a t 9 2 0 . U p o n r e v ie w o f

th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t ( 1 ) th e r e f e r e n c e s to K h a z a n o v ’s r e c o r d e d s ta te m e n t m e r e ly c o m m e n te d o n th e e v id e n c e p r e s e n te d to the j ury; (2) the re fe re nces t o the R ussi an m ob w er e noti n err or because a go vernm entw i tness t es t i fi ed thatV erbi t sky had ye l l ed t o the po l i ce thathe w as

“ one of the m ” r e f

e r r i ng t o the R us s i a n m ob; a nd ( 3) i tw a s notpl a i n e r r orf orthe p r o s e c u to rto p o in t o u t th a t th e d e f e n s e d id n o t g iv e a n in n o c e n t e x p la n a tio n in lig h t o f th e e v id e n c e o f

h is g u ilt. Se e U

ni t e d Stat e s v . D e l

gado , 56 F . 3d 1357, 1368 ( 11th C i r . 1995) ( “ a de f e nda nt ’ s f

i f th a m e ndm e ntpr i vi l e ge i s noti nf r i nge d by a c o m m e n t o n th e f

a ilu r e o f th e d e f e n s e , as oppos e d to the de f e ndant , t o c ount e ror e x p la in th e te s tim o n y p r e s e n te d o re v id e n c e in tr o d u c e d ” ) . F o u rth , V erb i t sk y cl ai m s th atth e d i stri ctj u d g e’ s i n t erru p t i o n s o f th e d efen se c r e a te d a n a iro f

p a r tia lity w h ic h d e n ie d h im th e r ig h t to a f a ira n d im p a r tia l tr ia l. W e r e vi e w a di s tr i c tj udge ’ s c onduc tdur i ng tr i a l f ora bus e of

di s c r e t i on. See U ni t e d Stat e s v . C ox , 6 6 4 F .2 d 2 5 7 , 2 5 9 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 1 ) . “[ I ]n o r d e rto a m o u n t to r e ve r s i bl e e r r or , a j udge ’ s r e m a r ks m us tde m ons tr a t e s uc h pe r va s i ve bi a s a nd u n f a irn e s s th a t th e y p r e

ju d ic e o n e o f

th e p a r tie s in th e c a s e .” U ni t ed Stat es v. R am i rez- C hi l el , 289 F . 3d 744, 750 n. 6 ( 11th C i r . 2002) . U pon r e vi e w of the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatthe i nt errupt i on s by the courtdi d n otshow bi as and w er e22

w ith in th e c o u r t’s d is c r e tio n . W e f u r th e rc o n c lu d e th a t th e y w e r e n e c e s s a r y to h e lp t o m ai nt ai n the pace of the tri al . F i nal l y, w e not e thatthe courti nstruct ed the j ury tha tc om m e nt s of

the c our tdi d notr e f

l e c tthe c our t ’ s opi ni on c onc e r ni ng a ny of the is s u e s in th e c a s e . T h u s , V e rb its k y w a s n o t d e n ie d th e r ig h t to a n im p a r tia l tr ia l. F i fth, V erbi t sky a rgues thathi s c ou nsel w as i neff ec t i ve. E xcepti n the ra re i ns t a nc e w he n the r e c or d i s s uf f i c i e nt l y de ve l ope d, w e w i l l nota ddr e s s c l a i m s f or in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e o f

c o u n s e l o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. U n ite d S ta te s v . T

y n da le , 209 F . 3d 12 92 , 12 94 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ). In thi s c as e, the re cord i s s uffi ci ent l y devel op ed to p e r m it u s to r e

je c t V e rb its k y ’s c la im . I n Str i c kland v . W

as hi ngton , 466 U . S . 668, 104 S . C t . 2052, 80 L . E d. 2d 674 ( 1 9 8 4 ) , th e U n ite d S ta te s S u p r e m e C o u r t e s ta b lis h e d th e f o llo w in g tw o - p a r t te s t to s how i ne f

f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e of

c ouns e l tha tvi ol a t e s the S i xth A m e ndm e nt : ( 1) “ the defe nd antm ustshow thatcoun se l ’ s per form ance w as defi ci ent , ” def i ned as

“ r e pr e s e nt a t i on [ tha t ] f

e l l be l ow a n obj e c t i ve s t a nda r d of r e a s ona bl e ne s s ; ” a nd ( 2)

“ the defendantm ustshow thatthe defi ci entperf orm ance prej ud i ce d the defense ” b y d em o n stra ti n g “th at th er e is a re as o n ab le p ro b ab il ity th at, b u t fo r c o u n se l’ s un profes si on al errors , the re sul tof the proceedi ng w ou l d h ave been di ff er ent . ” See al s o T ur ne rv . C r os by , 3 3 9 F .3 d 1 2 4 7 , 1 2 7 5 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . V erbi t sky c on t ends thathe w as deni ed ef fe ct i ve coun se l w hen h i s “ l ea d23

coun se l ” w as abse ntthe day of the cl osi ng ar gu m ent . A ttri al , V erbi t sky w as r e pr e s e nt e d by A l be r tD a y a n a nd R e e m be r t o D i a z . D a y a n ga ve the ope ni ng ar gu m enti n the ca se and w as pl anni ng t o g i ve the cl osi ng ar gu m ent . D i az ar gu ed m ay of the m ot i on s a nd perf orm ed the m aj ori ty of the cr oss- exam i nat i on . D ay an w a s a bs e ntthe da y of

the c l os i ng, a nd up on ag re em ent f rom V er bi t sk y , the court a llo w e d D ia z to p r e s e n t th e c lo s in g a r g u m e n t. M o r e o v e r , e a r ly o n in th e tr ia l, D ay an t ol d the j ud ge thatD i az w as “ a s ea soned at t orney” and t he D i az had “ m uch m o r e e x p e r ie n c e ” th a n h e d id . T h u s , D a y a n ’s a b s e n c e d u r in g c lo s in g a r g u m e n ts d id n o t f a ll b e lo w a n o b

je c tiv e s ta n d a r d o f

r e a s o n a b le n e s s . V e rb its k y a ls o a s s e r ts th a t tr ia l c o u n s e l w a s in e f f e c tiv e f o rf a ilin g to c a ll N atalie P o li co lo as an “ex p er t” in “i n tern atio n al b u sin es s typ e w o rk .” V erb it sk y’s c ouns e l pr of

f e r e d tha ts he w oul d t e s t i f y a bout“ how i n i nt e r na t i ona l tr a ns a c t i ons p eo p l e g i v e each o th er th e b an k acco u n tn u m b ers, h o w i ti s o n e o f th e m o st re l evantthi ng s i n any nego t i at i on . ” T he di stri ctcourtrul ed thatbase d o n that proffe r M s. P ol i col o cou l d n ott es t i fy attri al bu tthatthe defense coul d see k re consi dera t i on base d o n a further proffe r. V erbi t sky c l ai m s thathe re ce i ved i neff ec t i ve coun se l w hen n o further proffe r w as m ade by hi s a tt orneys . H e does note s t a bl i s h, how e ve r , w ha tf ur the rpr of

f e rc oul d ha ve be e n m a de , nordoe s he es t abl i sh ho w , bu tfor thi s om i ss i on , the re sul tof the proceedi ng s w ou l d h ave been24

di ff er ent . T hu s, w e c on cl ud e thatV erbi t sky’ s S i xth A m endm entri gh tt o cou nsel w a s n o t v io la te d . S i xth, V erbi t sky a rgues thatthe di stri ctcourti m prop er l y i nstruct ed the j ury r e g a r d in g th e p o s s ib le m e a n s b y w h ic h th e e x to r tio n m a y h a v e a f f e c te d in te r s ta te c om m e r c e . A s w e di s c us s e d a tl e ngth e a r l i e r , the j udge pr ope r l y i ns truc t e d the ju r y . See di s c us s i on i nf r a P a r t A . V erbi t sky’ s f

i nal ar gu m enti s thatthe di stri ctcourterre d i n i m po si ng an enhancem entfor use of a f i re arm , pu rs uantt o sec t i on 2B 3. 2(b)(3) of the U ni t ed S t a t e s S e nt e nc i ng G ui de l i ne s ( “ U . S . S . G . ” ) . V e rbi t s ky not e s tha tof f i c e r s di d not f in d a f ir e a r m a t V e rb its k a y a ’s c o n d o m in iu m a n d th a t K h a z a n o v d id n o t in d ic a te thata handg un w as used i n the com m i ss i on of the offens e w hen h e f i rs tre po rt ed the i nc i de ntt o of

f i c i a l s . V e rbi t s ky a l s o a r gue s tha t , e ve n i f the e xi s t e nc e of

the w eapo n w as prov en, there w as i nsuffi ci entevi dence t o sup po rta s i x-l evel e n h a n c e m e n t, b e c a u s e th e f ir e a r m w a s n o t “o th e r w is e u s e d ” d u r in g th e in c id e n t. H e c l ai m s thatthere w as no di re ctt es t i m on y or e vi dence thatthe w eapo n w as p o in te d a t K h a z a n o v . S ec t i on 2B 3. 2 cal l s f

or an i ncre as e of s even offense l evel s i f afi re arm w as d is c h a r g e d d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f e x to r tio n b y f

o r c e o rth r e a t, a n in c r e a s e o f s ix l evel s i f afi re arm w as “ otherw i se used, ” a nd an i ncre as e of f i ve l evel s i f afi re arm25

w as “ brandi shed or po ss es se d. ” U . S . S . G . § 2 B 3. 2(b)(3)(A ) ( 20 02 ). A fi re arm w as br a ndi s he d i f

“ a l l orpa r tof

the w e apon w a s di s pl a y e d, orthe pr e s e nc e of the w eapo n w as otherw i se m ade kno w n t o ano ther pers on , i n o rdert o i nt i m i dat e that pers on . . . . ” U . S . S . G . § 1 B 1. 1. , com m ent . (n. 1(c) ) ( 20 02 ). A fi re arm w as

“ ‘ otherw i se used’ . . . i f the cond uctdi d n otam ou ntt o the di sc harge of a f i re arm b u t w a s m o r e th a n b r a n d is h in g , d is p la y in g , o rp o s s e s s in g a f ir e a r m . . .” U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 , c o m m e n t. ( n .1 ( f

) ) ( 2 0 0 2 ) . W e ad d ressed th e d i fferen ce b etw een m erel y b ran d i sh i n g an d o th erw i se us i ng a f i r e a r m i n U

ni t ed Stat es v. C over , 19 9 F . 3d 12 70 , 12 78 (11t h C i r. 20 00 ), h o ld in g th a t “th e u s e o f a f ir e a r m to m a k e a n e x p lic it o rim p lic it th r e a t a g a in s t a sp ec ific p er so n co n stitu tes ‘o th er w ise u se ’ o f th e f irea rm .” H er e, K h az an o v ’s te s tim o n y a t tr ia l e s ta b lis h e d th a t V e rb its k y b e a t h im w ith a g o lf c lu b , p u n c h e d h im w i th a kn i fe , and t hrea t ened t o h ave hi s daugh t erraped. K haza no v further t es t i fi ed tha tV e rbi t s ky the n gr a bbe d a ha ndgun f r om be hi nd hi s ba c k a nd t ol d K ha z a nov th a t, if K h a z a n o v d id n o t f

o llo w th r o u g h w ith s e n d in g th e d e m a n d e d m o n e y to S w i t ze rl and, V erbi t sky a nd V erbi t skay a w ou l d sho othi m . F urtherm ore, O ff i ce r M a r c y S t one , of

the M i a m i - D a de P ol i c e D e pa r tm e nt , t e s t i f i e d tha t , on the ni ght w hen K haza no v report ed the i nci dentt o the autho ri t i es , she hea rd “ the ra ck of a g u n ” a s s h e w aited fo r a ss istan ce fr o m o th ero ff icer s o u tsid e o f V erb it sk ay a’sIn Blak e ly , the Supreme Court a

pplied the rule set out in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 16 U.S. 466, 120 S.C t. 2348, 147 L .Ed.2d 435 (2000), a nd held that bec ause thefac ts supporting the trial court’ s imposit ion of a greater sentence w ereneither admitted by the petitioner nor f

ound by a jury, the sentenc e imposed abovethe ra ng e indicate d in the State of Washington’ s Sentencing Reform Ac t violated Blakely ’s Six th Amendment right to a fair trial. In Booker , th eSup remeCourt he ld t hat th eSixth Amendment right to trial by jur y is 17 c ontravene d when th esentenc ingc ourt , ac tingun der t hemandator

y Guide lin e s, imp os e s a sentenc e greater than themaxi mum sentenceauthorized by the facts that were found by the jury alone. 125 S.Ct. at 749-56. 26 c ondom i ni um . W e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our tw a s w i thi n i t s di s c r e t i on t o f i nd th a t V e rb its k y u s e d th e f ir e a r m to m a k e a n e x p lic it th r e a t. F in a lly , w e n o te th a t s u b s e q u e n t to f ilin g h is in itia l b r ie f

o n ap p e a l, V e rbi t s ky s ubm i tt e d s uppl e m e nt a l a uthor i ty r a i s i ng the S upr e m e C our t ’ s de c i s i on i n B lake l y v . W as hi ngton , 54 2 U . S . __ , 12 4 S . C t . 25 31 , 15 9 L . E d. 2d 40 3 (20 04 ). 16 In thi s s ub m i ss i on , V erbi t sky c l ai m ed thatthe B lakel y d e c is io n “im p a c ts h is c a s e in thati tappl i es t o [hi s f

i re arm enhancem entcl ai m ] and any ot her e nh ance m ent s that w e r e g iv e n a t s e n te n c in g .” W e g r a n te d th e g o v e r n m e n t’s m o tio n to s tr ik e th is s uppl e m e nt a l a uthor i ty f r om the r e c or d. F ol l ow i ng or a l a r gum e nti n thi s c a s e , the S upr e m e C our tde c i de d U ni t ed Stat es v. B oo ke r , 543 U . S . __, 125 S . C t . 738, 160 L . E d. 2d 62 1 (20 05 ), w hi ch V erbi t sky s oo naft ersubm i tt ed t o u s a s s up pl em ent al 17 a uthor i ty . I n U

n ite d S ta te s v . N

e a ly , 232 F . 3d 825, 830 ( 11th C i r . 2000) w e s t a t e d: P art i es m ustsubm i tal l i ss ues on app ea l i n thei r i ni t i al bri ef . . . W hen n ew a u th o r ity a r is e s a f

te ra b r ie f

is f ile d , th is c ir c u it p e r m its p a r tie s to s u b m it s uppl e m e nt a l a uthor i ty on “ i nt e r v e ni ng deci si on s or n e w d ev el o p m en t s” re gardi ng i ss ues a l re ady properl y r ai se d i n the i ni t i al bri ef s . . . A l so, part i esIn Griffith v. Kentuck y , 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.C t. 708, 716, 93 L .Ed.2d 649 (1987) 18 the United States Supreme Court c oncluded that “ a new rule for the conduc t of criminal prosecutions is t o be applied retroactively to all case s . . . pendingon direc t reviewor not yet final.” The Griffith holding, however, a pplies only

to defendants who pre serve d their objec tions througho ut t

hetrial and

a pp e als p ro c e ss. 47 9 U .S. at 31 6- 20 ; see also United States v. Levy , 391 F.3d 1327 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (denial of rehe aringen banc ) (“ The Griffith Court did not require . . . that a dissimilarly

situated defendant-onewho did not preser ve his objection [below or on appeal] -would somehow benefit from the retroactive application of [a new Constitut ional rulin g ].” ). We alsono tethat th eSup remeCourt ha s re c ognize d th at th eretroac tiv ity ruleis “subjec t, of course , to established principles of waiver , harmless error , and the like.”Shea v. Louisi ana , 470 U.S. 51, 58 n.4, 105 S.C t. 1065, 1069 n.4, 84 L .Ed.2d 38 (1985). 27 ca n see k p erm i ss i on of the courtt o fi l e s up pl em ent al bri ef s on thi s new autho ri ty . . . . B utpart i es ca nn otprop er l y r ai se new i ss ues a tsupp l em ent al bri ef i ng , even i f the i ss ues a ri se base d o n the i nt erveni ng deci si on s or new d e v e lo p m e n ts c ite d in th e s u p p le m e n ta l a u th o r ity . ( in te r n a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ) ( e m p h a s is in o r ig in a l) . W e r e ite r a te d th is p r in c ip le in U ni t ed Stat es v. L ev

y , 3 7 9 F . 3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 4 2 ( 1 1 th C i r . 2 0 0 4 ) , wh e n we s a i d th a twe w o u l d n o ten t ert ai n L ev y’ s B lakel y c l a i m r a i s e d i n hi s pe t i t i on f orr e he a r i ng “b e c a u s e L e v y d id n o t tim e ly r a is e it in h is in itia l b r ie f o n ap p e a l.” S im ila r ly , in

18 U ni t e d Stat e s v . She l ton , 40 0 F . 3d 13 25 , 13 30 n. 5 (11 th C i r. 20 05 ), w e r evi ew ed p et i t i o n er S h el t o n ’ s B lakel y/ B oo ke rc l a i m on appe a l be c a us e he t i m e l y r a i s e d the i ss ue i n h i s i ni t i al bri ef

. W e not ed i n a foot no t e, ho w ever , thatS hel t on ’ s c as e w as di st i ng ui shabl e f

rom the ca se of pet i t i on er s w ho “ defaul t [] , w ai ve[] , or abando n[] atthe appel l at e s t age the Appr e ndi , B la ke ly , or B o o ker i ss ues. ” See al so U ni t ed Stat es v. A rdl ey , 242 F . 3d 989, 990 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( s t a t i ng tha t“ w e appl y our w el l -e st abl i shed rul e thati ss ues a nd cont ent i on s nott i m el y r ai se d i n the bri ef s a re28

d eem ed ab an d o n ed . ”). T h u s, w e d ecl i n e t o ad d ress th i s i ssu e b ecau se i ti s a c om pl e t e l y ne w i s s ue w hi c h V e rbi t s ky i s s e e ki ng t o r a i s e f orthe f i r s tt i m e i n a s u p p le m e n ta l f

ilin g . III . U pon r e vi e w of

the r e c or d, a nd upon c ons i de r a t i on of the br i e f s of the part i es , w e f

i nd no re vers i bl e e rr or. A cc ordi ng l y, w e AF F I RM the de c i s i on of the d is tr ic t c o u r t.