F ILED U.S. COURT O F APP EALS EL EV EN TH C IRC UIT March 6, 20 07 T HOMA S K. KA HN CLERK [ PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 05- 1456 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C. Docket N o. 04-602 98 CR-K AM UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A , Plaintiff-Appellee,

ve rs us JASON LUNTAY TAY LOR, D ef en dant- Appe llant .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the Southern District of Florida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (M ar ch 6, 200 7) Be fo re BL A CK , BA RKE T T and KRA V IT CH , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. BL ACK , C ircuit Judg e:Taylor raise d three other issues on appe al, which we do not discuss. W e have 1 deter mined the district court did not err by denying T aylor’s motion for ac quittal on the ammunition charg e or by

ref using to a pply a minor role r eduction to Tay lor’s sentenc e. F urther, the dis tr ic t c ourt

did no t a bu se its dis c re tio n b y

a dmi tti ngTa

ylor ’s po st- arr e st s tate me nts . 2 Ja son L unt ay

T ay lor appe al s hi s c onvi ct ionand s en te nc e fo r co nspi ra cy to int er fe re w ithint er state c om m er ce by m eans o f ro bbe ry , in vio la tio n of the H obbs Ac t, 18 U .S .C. § 1951 (a); c onsp iracy to poss ess with the intent to di stribute at least 15 kilo gram s but less th an 50 kilo gram s of cocaine, in viol ation of 21 U.S .C. § 84 6; p oss es sio n of

af ir earm in re la tio n to adr

ug tra ff ic kin g c ri m e, in vio la tio n of 18 U. S. C. § 924 (c)( 1)(A )(i); and po ssessio n of am m uniti on bya convicted felon, in violation o f 18 U. S. C. § 922 (g)(1). On appeal, Tay lor contends th e G overnm ent cannot establish a H obbs Ac t co nspi ra cy

be ca use the obj ec t of

the planne d r obbe ry , c oc ai ne , did not e xis t. 1 A ft er c ar ef ul r ev ie w , w e af

fi rm , hol din g th at

the obj ec t of

the r obbe ry

ne ed not e x i s tf o r th e Go v e rn men tt o p r o v e aHo b b s Ac tc o n s p i r a c y.

I. BACKGROUND Tay lor’ s convictio ns resulted from a re verse sting op eration by the Bureau of Alochol, T obacco, and Firearm s (A TF ). In O ctober 2004, a confidential inf orm an t c ont ac te d A T F Sp ec ia l A ge nt M ike Co nnor s to r ep ort that G eo rg e Ja ck son w as int er es te d inc om m itt ing an arm ed

narc oti cs r obbe ry . C onno rs , a ct ing3

undercover, m et w ith George Jac kson several tim es to plan the robbery of fictional co ca ine de al er s. Ja ck son ag re ed to ste al appr oxi m at el y

15 k ilo gr am s of

c oc ai ne fro m a st as h h ou se an d e nl is te d t he he lp of P ercy Cam pb el l, a t ru st edass oc ia te . On N ovem

ber 8, 2004 , C onno rs m et w ith Jackson and the confidential in fo rm an t t o n ot ify the m

th e co cai ne wou ldarri ve th e fo ll owi ng da y . On N ove m be r 9, 200 4, Ja ck son co nta ct ed Co nnor s to inf

orm him he c oul d no t l oc at e Cam pbell bu t had recr

uited som eone else, later identified as Jason Tay lor. Later that day , C onno rs gave the confidential inform ant a BMW equipped with audio and vid eo rec ording d evices. The inform ant drove the BMW to pick up J ac ksonand T ay lor , too k th em to O utd oor

W or ld whe re Ja ck son boug ht sh ot gu n a m

m un it io n, an d t he n m etCo nn or s an d fo ll owe d h im to a wareh ou se . Ja ck son, Co nnor s, and T ay lor dis cu sse d th e ro bbe ry

in the w ar eh ouse and T ay lor mad e s t a t e men t s i n d i c a t i n g h e i n t e n d e dt o c o mm i tth e p l an n e darmedr o b b e ry. While Jackson andTay lor we re still in the war ehouse, A TF agents arre sted the m . T he a ge nts f

ound aloa de d gun inT ay lor ’ s po sse ssi on. L at er that ni ght , T ay lor a dm itt ed he planne d to r ob the targ et ed hou se of 15 k ilo gr am s of

c oc ai ne an d e xpe ct ed

to re ce ive 4 ki log ram s of c oc ai ne in paym en t.4

The nar cotics organization, cocaine, guards, and house Conno rs described to Jackson and Tay lor we re a ll fictional parts of the sting o peration and never ex is te d. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW W e re vie wthe suf

fi ci en cy of e vid en ce to supp ort a

c onvi ct ionde novo , vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the gov er

nm en t and draw ing al l re as on ab le in fere nc es an d c red ib il it y ch oi ces infav or

of t he jury’ s v erd ic t. U nited Sta tes v . R odri

gue z, 218 F . 3d 1 243, 124 4 ( 11th C ir . 200 0) . W e w ill uph old a district court’ s denial of a m otion for a j udgm ent of acquittal if a r easonable trier of f ac t c oul d c onc lud e the e vid en ce e sta bli she d th e de fe ndant’ s gu ilt be y ond a reas on ab le do ub t. Id

. III. DISC USSION T he H obbs A ct

pr ohi bit s th e atte m

pt o r co nspi ra cy

to obstru ct , de lay , or affe ct com

m erce by robbery or extortion. 18 U. S. C. § 195 1. T he two re quired el em en ts f

or asub stanti ve H obbs A ct c onvi ct ionare “ ro bbe ry

and an e ff

ec t on [interstate] com

m erce .” United States v. R odrig uez , 218 F . 3d 1 243, 124 4 ( 11th Ci r. 200 0) . T he int er state ne xus fo r “ [a ] H obbs A ct c onsp ir ac y

c anbe pr ove d by showing a pot en tia l i m

pac t on int erstate c omm erce .” United States v. V erbitskaya ,5

40 6 F .3d13 24 , 13 35 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ) (em ph as is in ori gi na l), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 1095 (2006). If the c oc ai ne in thi s c as e ac tua lly e xis te d, asuf

fi ci en t i nte rs ta te ne xus wou ldex is t t o s at is fy

th e juri sd ic ti on al requi rem en t o f th e Hob bs Act. See U nited Sta tes v . B ernard , 47 F . 3d 1 101, 110 3 ( 11th C ir . 199 5) . T he iss ue of f ir st im pr es sio n inthi s C ir cu it is whe the r the H obbs A ct j ur isd ic tio na l r equir em en t i s m etwhen th e co cai ne an d c oc ai ne tra ffi ck ers are fi ct it io us . O nly the N inth C ir cu it Co urt of Appe al s ha s square ly

a ddr es se d th is juri sd ic ti on al ch al le ng e to a Hob bs Act co ns pi racy con vi ct io n. United States v. Rodriguez , 360 F . 3d 9 49, 955 -5 7 ( 9thCi r. 200 4) . I n Rodriguez , the de fe ndant argued there w as no effe ct on interstate com m erce because “ neither the narcotics nor the narcotics traff

ickers actually

existed.” Id . at 957. The RodriguezCourt re j ec te d th is arg um en t c onc lud ing that “ the non -e xis te nt s ta tus of the targ et

dr ug traff ickers is inappos ite. Im

poss ibilityis not a defense to the conspiracy charge. ” Id. at 957. T he Court aff irm ed the Hobbs Act c onvi ction based on the conspiracy to r ob f ic tit iou s dr

ug tra ff ic ke rs . Sim ilarly , this Court has aff irm ed Hobbs Act c onvi ctions resultin g from law en fo rcem en t s ti ng op erat io ns wher e th e o bjec t o f th e ch arg edcri m e was fic ti ti ou s. InUnited States v. E

aves , an FBI a gent created a fictitious develo pm ent proje ct6

an d of fe re d abr ibe to a Co unty

Co m m iss ion er in ex ch an ge f

or his f av or ab le vot e to r ez one the pr oj ec t si te . 877 F . 2d 9 43, 946 ( 11th C ir . 198 9) . T he appe llant ar gue d th er e w as no i m

pa ct on i nte rs ta te c om

m er ce be ca

use “ ev er y a spe ct of the

. . . proje ct w as a prete nse.” Id . a t 94 6. T his Co urt r ej ec te d th e ar gum en t, co nc lud ing the F BI ’ s r ole and the f ab ri catio n of

the pr oj ec t di d no t de str oy the in te rs ta te ne xu s fo r a Ho bb s Actco nv ic ti on . Id . ; se e als o United States v. H olmes , 767 F. 2d 8 20, 824 ( 11th C ir . 198 5) ( “ T he f ac t tha t the F BI und er co ve r ag en t represe nted a fictitious bu siness entit y is not a defense to an extortion charge.”) . In this case, Tay lor conspired to v iolentlyrob the stash ho use of a narc otics or ganiz at ion . T he f

ac t tha t the int en de d vi ct im s and n ar co tic s w er e fi ct ion al is ir re le vant. A cc or din gly , w e hol d th e int er state ne xus w as suf fi ci en t t o su sta in T ay lor ’ s H obbs A ct

c onsp ir ac y

c onvi ct ion . AFFIRMED.