2002). III. DISCUSSION Appellants each contend that the government failed to prove that AmSouth’s deposits were insured by the FDIC, which they maintain requires this Court to vacate their convictions. In support of their argument, Appellants claim that exhibit 6, which is the FDIC certification and affidavit of the Assistant Secretary of the FDIC, was testimonial evidence admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause as set forth in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004). To obtain a conviction for conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce through robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), the government need only prove a robbery and effect on commerce. United States v. Rodriguez, 218 F.3d 1243, 1244 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). At trial, Dean admitted to committing the
holding that conviction for hobbs act robbery is constitutional so long as it has de minimis impact on interstate commerce 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 that robbery of nationwide checkcashing company affected interstate commerce in violation of hobbs act holding two elements are essential for a hobbs act prosecution robbery and an effect on commerce holding the limitations to congresss commerce clause authority recognized in lopez have no effect on the establishment of the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act