Opinion ID: 394855
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Hobbs Act Jurisdiction

Text: 34 The Hobbs Act provides that it is unlawful to affect( ) commerce ... by ... extortion. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Extortion is defined in pertinent part as the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced ... under color of official right. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2). Each defendant was alleged to have affected commerce by obtaining top money from the boys under color of official right. Defendants contend that the government failed to prove that the taking of top money affected commerce. Angelilli argues in addition that there was no proof that any of the four boys from whom he was proven to have received top money was engaged in commerce. To the contrary, we find adequate evidence to support a conclusion that commerce was affected. 35 The jurisdictional requirement of the Hobbs Act may be satisfied by a showing of a very slight effect on interstate commerce. See United States v. Gambino, 566 F.2d 414, 418 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 952, 98 S.Ct. 1580, 55 L.Ed.2d 802 (1978). Even a potential or subtle effect on commerce will suffice. See United States v. Augello, 451 F.2d 1167, 1170 (2d Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1070, 92 S.Ct. 1518, 31 L.Ed.2d 802 (1972); United States v. Calder, 641 F.2d 76, 78 (2d Cir. 1981); United States v. Tropiano, 418 F.2d 1069, 1076-77 (2d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1021, 90 S.Ct. 1258, 25 L.Ed.2d 530 (1970). In Calder, for example, we found the requisite impact on interstate commerce in the extortion of $300 per week from a restaurant that had no liquor license, but that purchased de-alcoholized wine from a Canadian company. 36 In the present case there was ample evidence that many of the boys did business in interstate commerce. They purchased goods from out-of-state buyers and resold in New York; they purchased in New York, advertised in the New York Times (which the district court took judicial notice is circulated outside of New York), and sold to buyers from outside the state. 37 As for Angelilli's individual contention, we note that one of the four persons who purchased from him testified that he sometimes sold to out-of-state buyers the merchandise he had bought at marshals' auctions. And in any event, since the boys acted as a unit in purchasing at the collusive price at the marshals' auctions, a marshal's sale to one of the boys who himself happened not to engage in interstate transactions would nevertheless have the required effect on interstate commerce since he was kippered with those who dealt interstate. The evidence of effect on commerce was sufficient as to all defendants to sustain the Hobbs Act convictions.