Ly

MEMORANDUM **

Son Van Ly appeals his conviction for one count of conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery and one count of interference with interstate commerce by robbery. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a). We affirm.

(1) Ly asserts that there was insufficient evidence to establish a jurisdictional nexus between these takeover armed robberies of computer businesses and interstate commerce. We disagree. Of course, the nexus must be shown, see 18 U.S.C. § 1951 ; United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237, 1241 (9th Cir.1996). But the effect need not be great; in fact, a small effect is enough. See United States v. Woodruff, 122 F.3d 1185, 1186 (9th Cir.1997); United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159 , 1173 n. 20 (9th Cir.1980). Testimony in this case indicated that components used in the computer systems and products manufactured by the victim were made outside of the state, and were purchased from outside sources. That is enough to show an effect on interstate commerce.

(2) Ly also claims that the evidence was insufficient to establish the elements of the crime. Again, we disagree. He complains of the fact that witnesses against him were co-conspirators, who should not have…