Opinion ID: 3000548
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count Four (618 E. Broadway) and Count

Text: Seven (1615 S. Columbia) Craft argues that because the 618 E. Broadway and 1615 S. Columbia buildings, both rental properties, were temporarily unoccupied at the time Craft set fire to them, they were not being used in an activity that affects interstate commerce. He maintains that after Jones, rental properties must be occupied to fall within the scope of § 844(i). We rejected the same argument in Martin v. United States, 333 F.3d 819, 822 (7th Cir. 2003). In Martin, a building owner was convicted of setting fire to his apartment building, which was temporarily unoccupied and partially boarded-up at the time of the fire. The owner mounted a collateral attack on his conviction, arguing that Jones limited the reach of the federal arson statute such that temporarily vacant rental properties were not covered. We dismissed this argument and stated that “the temporary suspension of commercial activity 10 No. 06-3524 in a building . . . does not permanently remove that building from the scope of the arson statute.” Id. at 821. The owner contended that the lack of tenants and presence of boarded-up windows demonstrated that he no longer intended to rent the property. Our decision rejected the owner’s contentions and noted that he had received rental payments only two months before the fire and had improved the condition of the units even after the tenants moved out. Id. at 822. In this case, the government presented sufficient evidence that 618 E. Broadway was a rental property, despite the fact that it was temporarily vacant. Specifically, it offered evidence that the owner, a company named Beneficial, intended to use the property as a rental property and that Craft himself attempted to rent the property, but was denied. The government also offered sufficient evidence that the property located at 1615 S. Columbia was rental property. Eric Forrest purchased the building as an investment and renovated it for future rental as Section 8 low income housing. Although the property had not yet been listed for rental, Forrest had placed it on the Section 8 list so that it could be inspected to determine its eligibility. Because the owners of these properties did not permanently remove the buildings from the stream of commerce, they were both within the scope of § 844(i).