CHARBONEAU

v.

IDAHO

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Davis, 967 F.2d 516 (11th Cir. 1992)
  …l never passed. The potential impact on interstate commerce is measured at the time when the extortion demand was made based on the assumed success of the intended scheme. See United States v. Farrell, 877 F. 2d 870, 875 (11th Cir.), cert, denied, 493 U.S. 922, 110 S.Ct. 289, 107 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989); United States v. McKenna, 889 F. 2d 1168, 1172 (1st Cir.1989); see also United States v. Eaves, 877 F. 2d 943, 946 (11th Cir.1989) (FBI’s fictitious business project with no possibility of completion establish…
• United States v. Frost, 77 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 1996)
  …statute. Therefore, we cannot say, on the record before us, that the extortionate threat, if it had succeeded, “was likely to have the natural effect of obstructing commerce.” United States v. Farrell, 877 F. 2d 870, 875 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 922, 110 S.Ct. 289, 107 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). Consequently, we must reverse Appellants’ convictions on Count 1 of the indictment, including that of Martin. Although Martin did not assert this issue on appeal, a Hobbs Act conviction may not stand absent…
• United States v. Frost, 61 F.3d 1518 (11th Cir. 1995)
  …ct applies to extortion wherein the perpetrator ‘. in any way or degree obstructs, delays or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce . . ." United States v. Farrell, 877 F. 2d 870, 875 (11th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 922, 110 S.Ct. 289, 107 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989) (quoting 18 USC section 1951(a)). Cases construing the Hobbs Act have repeatedly held that the statute’s plain terms forbid interference -with interstate commerce in any degree. United States v. Summers, 598…

  ← 1 / 2 →