commerce.” Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558-59, 115 S.Ct. 1624. In Lopez, reiterated in Morrison, the Court outlined four considerations in determining whether purely intrastate activity substantially affects interstate commerce: (1) the commercial or economic nature of the intrastate activity; (2) the presence of a jurisdictional element in the statute; (3) the existence of congressional findings or legislative history demonstrating a link between the regulated activity and interstate commerce; and (4) how attenuated is the link between the intrastate activity and its effect on interstate commerce. See Morrison, 529 U.S. at 609-12, 120 S.Ct. 1740 (2000). In certain instances, an intrastate activity alone may substantially affect interstate commerce. See Jo , 57 S.Ct. 615); Ho, 311 F.3d at 602 (<HOLDING>); but see Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 323 F.3d
recognizing that the regulated activity at issue was asbestos removal rather than the plaintiffs commercial enterprise holding that instructions allowing a jury to find an enterprise from evidence of its activity as opposed to its structure properly conveyed the holding in turkette that proof of a pattern of racketeering activity may be sufficient in a particular case to permit a jury to infer the existence of an associationinfact enterprise holding that the owners at the time the land was seized are owed compensation rather than the subsequent purchasers holding that the forceable stop at issue was an investigatory stop rather than an arrest recognizing that by accepting bribes in exchange for allowing violations of a collective bargaining agreement the defendant was conducting the rico enterprise local union through racketeering activity even though the union was harmed by the racketeering activity