Court Opinion

ID: 9493300
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 15:04:03.942456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:55:46.006639
License: Public Domain

DENISE PAGE HOOD, District Judge,
concurring.
For the reasons set forth below, I concur in the judgment that Wang’s convictions on Counts I and II must be reversed.
I. BACKGROUND
On August 21, 1996, a grand jury returned a four-count indictment charging Appellant Min Nan Wang with the following: 1) robbery affecting interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951; 2) using and carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence (robbery) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1); 3) carjacking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2119; and 4) transporting a stolen motor vehicle in interstate commerce in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2312. Wang was also charged with aiding and abetting under 18 U.S.C. § 2 as to all four counts.
The ease was tried without a jury. The district court granted Wang’s motion for judgment of acquittal on Count III (the carjacking count) of the indictment. Wang was found guilty on the remaining three counts. Wang now appeals his conviction on Counts I and II. Wang does not challenge his conviction on Count IV. As to Count I, the robbery charge, Wang claims that the evidence was insufficient to show a connection between the property obtained from the robbery and any activity having an effect on interstate commerce. On Count II, using or carrying a firearm in relation to a crime of violence, Wang claims that he was wrongfully convicted on a theory of liability based on conspiracy, where a conspiracy was not charged in the indictment. Wang further claims that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction as an aider and abettor on Count II.
Wang is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China from the city of Fuzhou, Fuji-an Province. He illegally entered the United States in 1991. Wang was smuggled into the United States by professional smugglers called “the Snakeheads” for a fee of $30,000.00. Once in America, the money had to be repaid, with interest. The Snakeheads use physical threats and assaults to enforce the collection of such fees, including threats and force against family members remaining in China. The Snakeheads are able to locate these immigrants nearly anywhere in the United States because they usually remain in the Chinese community due to the language barrier and their illegal alien status.
Wang has lived in New York City and Atlanta, working in various restaurants. Ms. Chen Ping, an associate of'Wang, testified that there were several incidents involving Wang and the Snakeheads while Wang resided in New York. Ping testified that in 1994 gang members came into a restaurant where she and Wang worked, demanding $2,000.00 from Wang. Gang members also entered the apartment of Ping and Wang and demanded $1,600.00 from Wang and beat him with a cordless telephone when he did not produce the money. After this incident, Wang and Ping went into hiding and fled to Atlanta, but the threats and visits from the Snake-heads continued. Ping stated that gang members came to their apartment in At*242lanta, demanding $1,000.00 from Wang. On another occasion, gang members broke down Wang’s door, attacked him and demanded $9,000.00. The gang members also made threats that Wang’s family in China would be harmed if he did not pay. Ping contacted Wang’s sister in China to warn the family of the Snakeheads’ threats, but the sister informed Ping that the gang had already “visited” the family in China. Wang had previously borrowed money from friends to pay the_ Snake-heads. Wang called the police to inform them of the threats he had received. A police officer took a report but did nothing more than advise Wang to relocate.
In June or July of 1995, Wang worked for three weeks at the China Star restaurant in Cookeville, Tennessee. The China Star is owned by a Chinese-American couple, Trida and Paul Tsai, who reside in Algood, Tennessee. One of the Tsais’ employees had recruited Wang in Atlanta to substitute for a worker on leave.
Mrs. Tricia Tsai, who works at the restaurant, testified that her husband, Paul Tsai, came every night to close the restaurant. On September 11, 1995, after the Tsais closed the restaurant, they drove home in separate cars. Mrs. Tsai had $1,200.00 in cash from the day’s receipts which she planned to deposit in the bank the next day. The Tsais arrived at home and parked their cars in the garage. Mrs. Tsai testified that she entered the home first, placing the bag with the restaurant receipts on the floor in the dining room. When she entered her bedroom, someone grabbed her from behind. She was told to shut up and was hit on her head with a hard object which she could not identify. Mrs. Tsai was then handcuffed and taken into the bathroom. There, Mrs. Tsai was told to shut up, or she would be killed. Hearing the man speak Chinese, Mrs. Tsai recognized the voice as Wang’s, whom she knew as Wang Pong. The man was wearing a mask, and the room was dark. The man asked her about the money. Mrs. Tsai told him the location of the money. In addition to the $1,200.00 in cash from the restaurant, $3,000.00 in cash from the Tsais’ personal account was on the dining room table. Mrs. Tsai was then handcuffed to a fixture in the bathroom, and the man left the room. The man returned a few times to the bathroom to ask Mrs. Tsai where the money was located. Mrs. Tsai heard the man confer with another person in a low. voice. After Mrs. Tsai told the man where the $3,000.00 was located, the two men left the house.
Mr. Tsai testified that shortly after Mrs. Tsai entered the house, he heard her screaming. He was attacked as soon as he entered the house and then hit with a weapon. The man who attacked him took Mr. Tsai to the bedroom and handcuffed him to a rail.1 He threatened Mr. Tsai and asked for money. Mr. Tsai saw that this man had a small gun which he used to hit Mr. Tsai. Mr. Tsai testified that his attacker also left the room a few times to confer with someone else in a Chinese dialect, which he did not understand. He returned to the bedroom to ask Mr. Tsai about the money. Before the men left, Mr. Tsai was taken from the bedroom closet and handcuffed to a pipe in the laundry room. The men were in the house for about twenty to thirty minutes. Mr. Tsai was eventually able to open the garage door and call to a neighbor, who then alerted the police. The Tsais’ Toyota Corolla automobile was stolen. It was recovered the following day at the Atlanta airport.
During the Tsais’ ordeal, a police officer was conducting an investigation of a green Ford Tempo owned by Agency Rent-A-Car parked about .2 miles from the Tsais’ home. This police officer was summoned to the Tsais’ home. He later returned to the green Ford Tempo and determined from a rental agreement found in the car that the car had been rented by Wang using a credit card. A pair of handcuffs, *243bottled water and partially eaten sandwiches were found in the rental car. Wang later reported to the car rental company that the car had been stolen. Wang’s credit card records indicate that on the date the Tsais were robbed, his credit card was used to make purchases at a gas station and convenience market located a few miles from the Tsais’ home. The surveillance video tape from the gas station and market recorded Wang and another man purchasing sandwiches and bottled water similar to those found in the rental car.
Wang was arrested in Chamblee, Georgia, pursuant to a Putnam County, Tennessee, warrant for especially aggravated robbery, especially aggravated kidnaping, and especially aggravated burglary. The credit card used to rent the green Ford Tempo and to make purchases at the gas station and market near the Tsais’ home were found in Wang’s wallet.
After Wang waived his right to a trial by jury, a bench trial was held. Wang was found guilty on Counts I, II and TV. The district judge acquitted Wang on Count III, the carjacking count. The district judge departed ten levels downward from the Total Offense Level of 26 to Level 16, stating that Wang and his family had been subjected to violence and threats, that Wang had been treated badly by the criminal justice system in this country, and that Wang had a previously clean record and the act appeared aberrational. Wang was sentenced to 24 months on Counts I and IV, followed by a mandatory 60-month sentence on Count II, to be served consecutively, for a total term of 84 months.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Standard of Review
Wang claims there was insufficient evidence to convict him under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, in Count I and as an aider and abettor on the firearm charge in Count II. Insufficiency of evidence claims are determined by considering “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Brown, 959 F.2d 63, 67 (6th Cir.1992) (quoting Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)).
Wang also claims that the district court incorrectly applied the conspiracy theory set forth in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 645-648, 66 S.Ct. 1180, 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946), by weighing the evidence for conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1) where he was not charged with conspiracy. This issue is a question of law, reviewable under a de novo standard. United States v. Graves, 60 F.3d 1183, 1185 (6th Cir.1995).
B. The Hobbs Act (Count I)
Wang claims that there is insufficient proof on the record to support a finding of guilt under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (the “Hobbs Act”) because the Government failed to show that the robbery of the victims in this case had an effect on interstate commerce sufficient to meet the jurisdictional nexus required under section 1951.
18 U.S.C. § 1951 states in pertinent part:
(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery ... or attempts or conspires to do so, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). In order to prevail under a Hobbs Act violation, the Government must prove two elements: 1) interference with interstate commerce, which is a jurisdictional issue; and, 2) the substantive criminal act, which in the instant case is robbery. Stirone v. United States, 361 *244U.S. 212, 218, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960).
Wang does not argue that the Hobbs Act is unconstitutional. The Hobbs Act’s constitutionality has been repeatedly Upheld. United States v. Valenzeno, 123 F.3d 365, 368 (6th Cir.1997). Wang also does not challenge the robbery element of his conviction under the Hobbs Act. Wang claims that since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), the proper test for the jurisdictional element in a federal statute is whether the activity “substantially affects” interstate commerce. Id. at 559, 115 S.Ct. 1624. Under this standard, Wang claims that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. Id.
The Government cites pre-Lopez cases to support its argument that, in this Circuit, only a de minimis effect on interstate commerce is required to support a conviction under the Hobbs Act. See, e.g., United States v. Harding, 563 F.2d 299, 303 (6th Cir.1977). Prior to Lopez, this Circuit held that there is no requirement that there be an actual effect on interstate commerce, but only a showing that there be a realistic probability that the activity would have affected interstate commerce. United States v. Brown, 959 F.2d 63, 67 (6th Cir.1992).
In the Valenzeno case, this Circuit had the opportunity to address the Hobbs Act post-Lopez. The sufficiency of the effect on interstate commerce was not addressed, however, because the defendant did not raise that issue on appeal. Valenzeno only addressed the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act in light of Lopez. This Circuit noted in Valenzeno that “[i]f Lopez indicates that the Commerce Clause gives Congress less power than was previously thought to be the case, the proper remedy would be to give the statute a narrower interpretation, or to require a more substantial jurisdictional nexus, not to hold facially invalid an Act of Congress.” Valenzeno, 123 F.3d at 368.
Consistent with the Lopez case, the jurisdictional test of a federal statute such as the Hobbs Act is whether the regulated activity “substantially affects” interstate commerce. The Supreme Court in Lopez acknowledged that, prior to Lopez, case law did not clearly indicate whether an activity must “affect” or “substantially affect” interstate commerce in order for Congress to exercise its power under the Commerce Clause. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 559, 115 S.Ct. 1624. The Supreme Court then announced that the test should be the “substantially affects” test. Id. The Supreme Court also noted that the jurisdictional element should be determined on a “case-by-case inquiry.” Id. at 561, 115 S.Ct. 1624.
Under the Hobbs Act, the “substantially affects” test focuses on the “activity” of the victim involved, rather than the single criminal act performed by the defendant, and how that activity affects interstate commerce. See United States v. Smith, 182 F.3d 452, 456 (6th Cir.1999). In Smith, this Circuit held that “the de min-imis standard for the interstate commerce effects of individual Hobbs Act violations survived Lopez.” Id. at 456. The Court adopted the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning regarding the Lopez decision that, “if a statute regulates an activity which, through repetition, in aggregate has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under the statute is of no consequence.” Id. (citing United States v. Bolton, 68 F.3d 396, 399 (10th Cir.1995) (internal quotations omitted)).
In Smith, the defendant and others robbed party stores. The defendant argued on appeal that the test under the Hobbs Act was whether the robberies had a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce, instead of the “de minimis” effect previously required in this Circuit. Id. at 456. Applying the Tenth Circuit’s reasoning that the single activity of the perpetrator is not the test but, in the aggregate, whether the activities substantially affect *245interstate commerce, this Circuit found that the government had met its burden by proving that the robbed stores conducted “substantial” business in beer, wine, and tobacco products, and that most of the products did not originate in Michigan. Id. The single “activity” of the perpetrator and “the de minimis character of individual instances arising under the statute is of no consequence.” Bolton, 68 F.3d at 399.
In its ruling, the district court in this case believed that it was bound by this Circuit’s cases regarding the de minimis test of how to determine the effects of the activity on interstate commerce under the Hobbs Act. Based on Smith, the district court was correct in its conclusion that the de minimis standard is still applicable under the Hobbs Act in this Circuit. However, the facts in this case are distinguishable from the Smith case.
The district court in its finding stated:
Now then, on the question of Count One of the indictment. This Court has previously expressed its legal reservations, its philosophical reservations about the Hobbs Act and its unreasonable stretching of the commerce clause beyond all recognition.
However, this Court is bound by precedents from the United States Supreme Court, as well as the Sixth Circuit. This Court finds that there is no effect on interstate commerce beyond an absolute de minimis effect of $1,200.
There is no proof that Dr. and Mrs. Tsai closed the restaurant, that they were unable to order any further goods from out of state. There is no evidence of an affect [sic] upon interstate commerce.
However, this Court is, as I say, bound by precedent, even though I disagree strongly with that precedent and I urge the higher courts to change that precedent as they have begun apparently to do in the Lopez case and in others.
Nevertheless, the Court finds that the elements of Count One have been proven, and the Court finds you guilty, Mr. Wang Min Nan, of a violation of Hobbs Act as charged in Count One of the indictment.
(J. A. at 151-52 (emphasis added).)
The district court’s finding focused on Wang’s activity and found that the money taken from the Tsais in the amount of $1,200.00 had a de minimis effect on interstate commerce. The district court did not focus on the victims’ activity at the time of the robbery and did not differentiate between a robbery of an individual and a robbery of a business. In Smith, the robbery involved a place of business. The Tsais were not at their place of business when they were robbed. The robbery took place at the victims’ private home. The evidence shows in this case that the Tsais were involved in the restaurant business and that some of the goods for the business were purchased outside the state of Tennessee. Stolen from the Tsais’ home was money brought home from the business, money from their personal account, which was on the dining room table, and a vehicle.
In United States v. Collins, 40 F.3d 95 (5th Cir.1994), the Fifth Circuit delineated the difference between a robbery of a business and of an individual. The government’s theory in Collins was that the robbery of the victim in his personally-owned vehicle affected interstate commerce because as a consequence of the robbery, the victim was prevented from attending a business meeting and prevented from using his cellular telephone to make business calls. Id. at 99. The Fifth Circuit held that the robbery in Collins did not violate the Hobbs Act, stating that “if the robbery of an individual were found to affect interstate commerce merely because of the real or perceived disruption of the individual’s business by interfering with his work, the reach of section 1951(a) would be ubiquitous, and any robbery, in our closely-interwoven economy, arguably would affect interstate commerce.” Id. at 100. The Fifth Circuit went on to state, “[hjowever, *246as broadly as the extension of the interstate commerce requirement has spread, we are still a federal, not a unitary government and, neither the constitutional limits on the power of the national government, nor the jurisdictional requirement of some connection with interstate commerce may be ignored.” Id. (internal citations omitted) The Fifth Circuit observed that “the Hobbs Act was intended to reach only certain activities that hamper interstate business, reflecting the long-recognized principle that the states are best positioned and equipped to enforce the general criminal laws.” Id.
The Fifth Circuit also noted that the “depletion-of-assets” theory falls in an indirect effect category on interstate commerce, as opposed to a direct effect on interstate commerce. Id. at 99. This “depletion-of-assets” theory is usually applied to businesses engaged in interstate commerce because criminal acts against businesses would have a greater effect on interstate commerce than criminal acts against individuals. Id. at 99-100. The Fifth Circuit noted certain circumstances where criminal acts may violate section 1951(a). The following factors were considered by the Fifth Circuit to determine whether the criminal acts directed toward an individual violate section 1951(a):
(1) the acts deplete the assets of an individual who is directly and customarily engaged in interstate commerce; (2) if the acts cause or create the likelihood that the individual will deplete the assets of an entity engaged in interstate commerce; or (3) if the number of individuals victimized or the sum at stake is so large that there will be some cumulative effect on interstate commerce.
Id. at 100 (footnotes, citations and internal quotations omitted).
Applying the Collins factors to the facts in this case, there is insufficient evidence to find a violation of the Hobbs Act. The evidence shows that the Tsais were robbed in their home of $1,200.00 in cash from the restaurant receipts for the day and $3,000.00 in cash from the Tsais’ personal account. The evidence is insufficient to show that the total amount taken significantly depleted the Tsais’ personal account, business account or restaurant assets or that they were likely to be depleted. The district court found that the restaurant was not closed as a result of the robbery, nor were the Tsais prevented from ordering any goods from out-of state. The evidence does not show that the number of individuals victimized or the sum taken was so large that there was any cumulative effect on interstate commerce. Based on the evidence presented at trial, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the robbery of the Tsais at their home had even a de minim-is affect on interstate commerce. Wang’s conviction on Count I is therefore reversed.
C. Firearms Charge (Count II)
Section 924(c) makes it unlawful for “any person who, during and in relation to any crime of violence ... for which the person may be prosecuted in a court of the United States, uses or carries a firearm, or who, in furtherance of any such crime, possesses a firearm.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (emphasis added). Section 924(c)(1) is a distinct offense rather than merely being a sentencing enhancement provision. United States v. Nelson, 27 F.3d 199, 200 (6th Cir.1994); United States v. Ospina, 18 F.3d 1332, 1335-36 (6th Cir.1994). A defendant need not be convicted or even charged with the underlying crime to be convicted under § 924(c). Nelson, 27 F.3d at 200. However, it is necessary that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt all of the elements of § 924(c), one of which is that the defendant committed the underlying crime. Id. at 200-201. Because there is insufficient evidence to show that Wang committed the underlying crime of robbery under the Hobbs Act, there is insufficient evidence to convict *247Wang under § 924(c). Wang’s conviction under Count II must also be reversed.

. This man was never identified or apprehended.