Opinion ID: 1086580
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hobbs Act Robbery

Text: To prove that a defendant committed Hobbs Act robbery, the government must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt that (1) the defendant knowingly or willfully committed . . . robbery or extortion, and (2) the defendant’s conduct affected interstate commerce.” United States v. Powell, 693 F.3d 398, 401 (3d Cir. 2012). In reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting conviction, we apply a “particularly deferential standard of review.” Id. at 401 n.6. “We view all evidence in the light most favorable to the government, and sustain conviction as long as any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Though the Government’s evidence demonstrated that Le was involved in four different robberies, he was charged with Hobbs Act robbery only for the Bartonsville robbery. As noted supra, the Government introduced extensive testimony from Le’s codefendants regarding Le’s participation in the Bartonsville robbery. Accordingly, the issue identified in counsel’s Anders motion was not whether the evidence was sufficient 7 to show that Le participated in the robbery, but whether the Government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the robbery had an effect on interstate commerce. The record demonstrates that the Government’s evidence was sufficient on this point. We recently held, in a case factually similar to this one, that where the evidence establishes that a defendant has targeted a residence in order to rob the home of proceeds from a business that engages in interstate commerce, the jurisdictional element of Hobbs Act robbery is satisfied. In United States v. Powell, supra, defendant and his accomplices targeted business owners by following them from their businesses to their homes in order to rob them of business proceeds. Id. at 399. They specifically targeted Asian-owned businesses on the belief that the owners of such establishments did not use banks. Id. Evidence showed that the business establishments they targeted sold merchandise from out-of-state suppliers, and therefore, were engaged in interstate commerce. Id at 399400. The defendant moved to dismiss the indictment for insufficient evidence to demonstrate an effect on interstate commerce, arguing that the robbery of a private residence, rather than a place of business, did not satisfy the Hobbs Act’s requirement that the robbery must affect interstate commerce. Id. at 400, 402. We rejected the defendant’s arguments, joining several of our sister circuits in holding that where a defendant targets a home for the purpose of stealing proceeds from a business that engages in interstate commerce, “such targeting satisfies the Hobbs Act’s jurisdictional nexus.” Id. at 403. See also United States v. Le, 256 F.3d 1229, 1237 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001) (“Our conclusion that Le’s actions implicated interstate commerce to a degree sufficient to create jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act is based on the fact that Le 8 specifically targeted business assets that were temporarily kept at a private residence which, if stolen, had the potential to delay or obstruct the purchase of products from another state . . . .”); United States v. Nguyen, 246 F.3d 52, 54 (1st Cir. 2001). Multiple witnesses testified that defendants chose to rob the house in Bartonsville on the belief that Mr. Tran, the homeowner, kept proceeds from his nail salon business in the home. In addition, the Government introduced evidence that Mr. Tran’s nail salons were engaged in interstate commerce. Mr. Tran testified that he purchased supplies for his nail salons from a supplier in California via UPS shipments. Finally, the evidence indicated that at least some of the money stolen represented proceeds from the victim’s nail salons. The Hobbs Act’s jurisdictional nexus was clearly satisfied here.