United States v. Hugh Ridgley

MEMORANDUM

Hugh Ridgley was charged, under the Hobbs Act, with the robberies of two pizza deliverymen. 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (a). He appeals his conviction on both counts, arguing that: (1) the interstate commerce jury instruction was defective; and (2) there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. We affirm.

1. Ridgley takes issue with the following jury instruction: “To establish that commerce was affected, the proof may only show a de minimus, that is, a slight effect or a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce.” We have repeatedly approved the standard described by this instruction. See, e.g., United States v. Atcheson, 94 F.3d 1237,1244 (9th Cir.1996) (rejecting a jury instruction challenge because “the Government need only prove that [defendant’s] actions had a probable or potential effect on interstate commerce to support his conviction under the Hobbs Act”). Moreover, this standard has been approved in prosecutions for both substantive and inchoate offenses. See United States v. Boyd, 480 F.3d 1178, 1178 (9th Cir.2007) (per curiam) (upholding a Hobbs Act conviction because the completed robbery of a business “potentially impacted interstate…