Quan

MEMORANDUM **

We affirm defendant Quan’s conviction for conspiracy and attempt to extort money in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 . Quan waived his Speedy Trial Act challenge by withdrawing his motion to dismiss and proceeding to trial. United States v. Brickey, 289 F.3d 1144, 1150 (9th Cir.2002). Quan’s claim that his counsel was ineffective for withdrawing the Speedy Trial Act motion is inappropriate for review on direct appeal. See United States v. Sager, 227 F.3d 1138, 1149 (9th Cir. 2000).

We also affirm defendant Chang’s conviction. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found a sufficient *892 nexus between Chang’s acts and interstate commerce, see United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237 , 1241 (9th Cir.1996), especially in light of the defendant’s stipulation that the bar was purchasing alcohol from outside the state of California at all times relevant to the offense. See United States v. Panaro, 266 F.3d 939, 948 (9th Cir. 2001).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting the victim to testify regarding her subjective fear, her belief that Chang was a member of the “Black…