alleged failure to prove an overt act that affects interstate commerce. He does not argue that the Government was required to prove specific intent on his part to damage or destroy a building used in interstate commerce, nor do we believe that such an argument would be availing. See United States v. Muza, 788 F.2d 1309, 1311-12 (8th Cir.1986) (rejecting argument that government was required to prove that defendant had actual knowledge that target of § 844(i) conspiracy was used in interstate commerce); cf. United States v. Jimenez, 256 F.3d 330, 338 n. 9 (5th Cir.2001) ("We are not persuaded that a defendant need have any knowledge of a building’s effect on interstate commerce in order to be convicted under § 844(i).”); United States v. Gullett, 75 F.3d 941, 947-48 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 11 . The Government also argues that each of
holding that to establish estoppel defense to copyright infringement defendant must prove inter alia that plaintiff intended that its conduct would be acted on or so acted that defendant has a right to believe that it was so intended holding that termite damage does not fall within the meaning of property damage in the policy because the alleged misrepresentations did not cause the damage the termites did holding that government did not have to establish that defendant intended to damage rental property it was sufficient that the government showed that the defendant acted intentionally or with willful disregard of the likelihood that damage to the rental property would result from his actions holding that a similar exclusion denies coverage for property damage to the particular part of the real property that is the subject of the insureds work at the time of the damage if the damage arises out of those operations holding that property damage occurred when homeowners noticed damage not when house was improperly constructed