his convictions for conspiracy to commit robbery under the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951, must be reversed. Because Hoffman did not file a Rule 29 motion regarding this issue, we review for plain error. Powell, 113 F.3d at 466-67. Hoffman relies on United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). However, we have held that drug trafficking affects interstate commerce. United States v. Orozco, 98 F.3d 105, 107 (3d Cir.1996). Interference with a drug dealer’s business has been held to violate the Hobbs Act because of the interstate character of drug dealing. United States v. Cox, 942 F.2d 1282, 1286 (8th Cir.1991). Accordingly, a conspiracy to rob drug traffickers may affect interstate commerce. See United States v. Clausen, 328 F.3d 708, 711 (3d Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Jones, 30 F.3d 276, 285 (2d
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 in the context of hobbs act prosecutions  an indictment need not set forth facts alleging how interstate commerce was affected nor otherwise state any theory of interstate impact holding that robbery of nationwide checkcashing company affected interstate commerce in violation of hobbs act holding that conviction for hobbs act robbery is constitutional so long as it has de minimis impact on interstate commerce holding two elements are essential for a hobbs act prosecution robbery and an effect on commerce