the Plaintiffs’ Activities Involved Interstate Commerce The final question is whether the plaintiffs’ activities involved interstate commerce. For the purpose of the Motor Carrier Act exemption, “[a] carrier engages in interstate commerce by either actually transporting goods across state lines or transporting within a single state goods that are in the flow of interstate commerce.” Barefoot, 16 F.3d 1216, at *2 (citing Merchants Fast Motor Lines, Inc. v. I.C.C., 528 F.2d 1042, 1044 (5th Cir. 1976)); see also 29 C.F.R. § 782.7(b)(1) (“Highway transportation by motor vehic e intrastate transport of empty bottles destined for a bottling plant outside the state was a part of interstate commerce); Glanville v. Dupar, Inc., No. H-08-2537, 2009 WL 3255292, at *9-10 (S.D.Tex. Sept. 25, 2009) (<HOLDING>). The Eleventh Circuit has specifically
holding that the connection between the robbery and interstate commerce was much more direct than in wang because at the time of the robbery the victim in walker was selling illegal drugs that had traveled through interstate commerce recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce holding that the time appliances were at a distribution center within the state did not break the continuity of interstate movement the subsequent delivery from the distribution center was the last phase in the interstate shipment holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce holding after lopez that the interstate nexus element of the hobbs act still requires the government to show only a minimal connection to interstate commerce