we held that there was a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce where the defend nal jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the robbery had an effect, albeit slight or potential, on interstate commerce. For instance, Jeanette testified that, after the robbery, she limited her guests to friends and family and then shut down the operation completely a few months later. At least one speakeasy customer, Alberto Vasquez, chose not to return and spend his money at the speakeasy after the robbery. From that evidence, a jury could reasonably infer that the robbery caused the business to close. Causing a business engaged in interstate commerce to close has, or at least potentially has, an effect on interstate commerce. See United States v. Jimenez-Torres, 435 F.3d 3, 8 (1st Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, such conduct, in the aggregate,
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 holding that the hobbs act did not apply to the robbery of a computer company executive in his home even though the crime may have prevented him from getting to work or making busi ness calls because his only connection with interstate commerce was his employment by a business engaged in interstate 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 holding that robbery of nationwide checkcashing company affected interstate commerce in violation of hobbs act