Court Opinion

ID: 9498951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 17:33:22.680236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:59:11.222011
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority’s thoughtful analysis and conclusion, but write separately to express my concern with the United States Attorney’s office asserting federal jurisdiction over this criminal case. The United States distinct courts are extremely burdened with civil and criminal cases that clearly merit decisions by a federal court. The Northern District of Iowa, like many other districts, is overwhelmed with criminal cases. According to the Administrative Office, the Northern District of Iowa handled 22% of the total criminal matters and 33% of the total sentencing hearings by district courts in this circuit for the twelve-month period ending September 30, 2005. Moreover, the federal prosecutor’s assertion of jurisdiction contradicts the stated policy of the United States Attorneys’ Manual. Nonetheless, this circuit’s precedent requires that we find that this case’s tenuous nexus to interstate commerce is sufficient to create federal jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act.
In our federal system, “[t]he States possess primary authority for defining and enforcing the criminal law.” Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107, 128, 102 S.Ct. 1558, 71 L.Ed.2d 783 (1982); see also United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 564, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995) (recognizing historical sovereignty of states in criminal law enforcement). As former Chief Justice Rehnquist stated, ‘“the traditional principle of federalism’ ” is that criminal matters “ ‘that can be adequately handled by the states should be left to them....’” J. Kelly Strader, The Judicial Politics of White Collar Crime, 50 Hastings L.J. 1199, 1258 (1999) (quoting “Chief Justice Criticizes Trend Toward Federalization of Crime,” 66 U.S.L.W. 2722 (May 26, 1998)). Dobbs and Wilson were each convicted in federal court of committing armed robbery, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), and for being felons in possession of a firearm, § 922(g). Iowa’s code criminalizes and mandates state law penalties similar to these federal provisions. Compare Iowa Code § 711.2 (robbery in the first degree), § 724.26 (possession of a firearm by felon), § 702.11 (classifying robbery in the first degree is a “forcible felony”), § 902.7 (setting minimum sentence for use of a dangerous weapon during the commission of forcible felony), and § 902.8 (setting minimum sentence for habitual offenders), with 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 924.
The Hobbs Act applies to robberies that “in any way or degree” obstruct, delay, or affect commerce. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Under the current state of the law in this circuit, it is hard to conceive any robbery of any entity involved in selling any product, that would not affect interstate commerce. See United States v. Quigley, 53 F.3d 909, 910 (8th Cir.1995) (“When a business that sells goods manufactured outside the state is robbed, interstate commerce is usually sufficiently affected for the purposes of [18 U.S.C.] § 1951(a).”) In United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 843 (8th Cir.1996), we noted that the text of the Hobbs Act does not exclude single local robberies, so long as the robbery affects, obstructs, or delays “commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce.” We then determined that United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), had “no *915application to cases of commercial establishments, such as the [retail] store involved” there. Farmer, 73 F.3d at 843. The circumstances of this case are far different from our previous Hobbs Act cases. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 308 F.3d 833, 836 (8th Cir.2002) (robbery-victim taxi driver “frequently transported Federal Express employees, railroad crew members, and packages moving in interstate commerce” and “also regularly transported passengers to and from the Eastern Iowa Airport”); United States v. Vong, 171 F.3d 648, 650 (8th Cir.1999) (armed robberies of several jewelry stores); Farmer, 73 F.3d at 843 (robbery of one location and the conspiracy to rob several other locations of a chain grocery store with “162 food stores, 38 convenience stores, and 20 drug stores in seven states”). Here, the federal prosecutor exerted jurisdiction over a one-time robbery of a convenience store at a single location. It is hard to imagine a robbery of a commercial establishment with less of a connection to interstate commerce than this one. The store purchased the majority of its products from an in-state wholesaler, the robbery was not part of a larger conspiracy, and it yielded only $565.00.
Finally, assertion of federal jurisdiction over this case violates the United States Attorneys’ written policy. “The robbery offense in 18 U.S.C. § 1951 is to be utilized only in instances involving organized crime, gang activity, or wide-ranging schemes.” United States Attorneys’ Manual § 9-131.040 (emphasis added). Although the robberies in Farmer, 73 F.3d at 843 (conspiracy to rob several stores), and Vong, 171 F.3d at 650 (robberies of several jewelry stores), fit under the “wide-ranging schemes” language, this case involved but a single robbery. Thus, the assertion of jurisdiction here cannot be reconciled with the government’s own policy of cases on which it ought to expend federal resources.
Accordingly, I question why the United States Attorney did not leave this case to the state of Iowa, but nonetheless agree that our circuit precedent requires that we find federal jurisdiction did exist.