United States Ninth Circuit

Defendant, convicted under the Hobbs Act of conspiring to interfere with commerce by robbery, raises meritless challenges to his conviction and sentence. The Act's definition of "commerce" is not unconstitutionally vague; de minimis effect on interstate commerce was shown, and thus federal jurisdiction exists, even though defendant's intentions of robbing a narcotics trafficker could not have come true.

Appellate Information

• Argued 01/05/2004
• Decided 02/23/2004
• Published 02/23/2004

Judges

• TROTT, Circuit Judge:, Before: TROTT, RAWLINSON, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

Court

• United States Ninth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• W. Michael Mayock,Law Offices of W. Michael Mayock, Pasadena, CA, for the defendant-appellant., Brian M. Hoffstadt, Assistant United States Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, for the plaintiff-appellee.