any person who “obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation” of the Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). In order to prevail under the Hobbs Act, “the Government must prove two elements: (1) interference with interstate commerce (2) in the course of a substantive criminal act.” United States v. Ostrander, 411 F.3d 684, 691 (6th Cir. 2005). As McComb concedes, the law of this Circuit has required only a showing of a de minimis connection with interstate commerce to satisfy the Hobbs Act. See United States v. Davis, 473 F.3d 680, 681-82 (6th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Although robbing an individual of money alone
holding that de minimis standard survives gonzales v raich 545 us 1 125 sct 2195 162 led2d 1 2005 holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by united states v booker  us  125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing holding that  3582c does not apply to a person seeking resentencing under united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 holding that united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 did not alter the standard of review for the interpretation and application of the guidelines holding that blakely and united states v booker 543 us 220 125 sct 738 160 led2d 621 2005 are not retroactive on collateral review