Opinion ID: 745302
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: federal jurisdiction under the hobbs act

Text: 33 Romero challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support federal jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act. He contends the government failed to prove that the robbery of Michael's Kitchen had any effect on interstate commerce. In particular, he argues that under United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), the government must establish that the type of robbery committed was likely to be repeated and that this repetition would substantially affect commerce. App't Br., at 37. He asserts that because the robbery did not affect the amount of business conducted by Michael's Kitchen and the amount of out-of-state supplies that the restaurant ordered, his convictions under the Hobbs Act cannot stand. 34 The Hobbs Act provides for the punishment of anyone who in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The statute broadly defines the term commerce to encompass all commerce between any point in a State, ... and any point outside thereof ... and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(3). 35 Hobbs Act jurisdiction is based on Congress's broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. See Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215, 80 S.Ct. 270, 272, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960). In accordance with the plain language of the statute, we have held that the jurisdictional predicate of the Hobbs Act can be satisfied by a showing of any de minimis effect on interstate commerce. United States v. Bruce, 78 F.3d 1506, 1509 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 149, 136 L.Ed.2d 95 (1996); United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 398-99 (10th Cir.1995), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 116 S.Ct. 966, 133 L.Ed.2d 887 (1996); United States v. Zeigler, 19 F.3d 486, 489 (10th Cir.1994). Moreover, we have concluded that a construction requiring only a de minimis effect on interstate commerce in individual instances is consistent with Lopez. Bruce, 78 F.3d at 1509; Bolton, 68 F.3d at 399. 36 To establish the requisite de minimis effect on commerce, the government need only produce evidence establishing that the assets of a business engaged in interstate commerce were depleted during the commission of the crime. Zeigler, 19 F.3d at 489. Under the depletion of assets theory, 37 commerce is affected when an enterprise, which either is actively engaged in interstate commerce or customarily purchases items in interstate commerce, has its assets depleted ..., thereby curtailing the victim's potential as a purchaser of such goods. 38 Bolton, 68 F.3d at 398; Zeigler, 19 F.3d at 489-90. 39 In this case, the government established that Romero and his accomplice stole over $10,000 in cash and checks from Michael's Kitchen. As a result, Mr. Ninneman was forced to borrow $11,000 from a bank in order to re-open his restaurant. The restaurant was also late in paying many of its main suppliers, such as Kraft Foods, located in Albuquerque, New Mexico (who sends french fries from Washington, frozen corn from Oregon, apple pie and turkey from Michigan, hamburger from Minnesota, chicken from Arkansas, blueberry pie from Illinois, and parsley from Iowa). The government also proved that Michael's Kitchen serves 1400-1600 people per day, many of whom are from out of state. Under such circumstances, we hold that the government presented sufficient evidence to establish that the robbery of Michael's Kitchen obstructed delayed or affected interstate commerce. 40