to determine “whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to the government, there is substantial evidence to support the jury’s guilty verdict.” Id. In other words, we ask if “any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quotations omitted). McNeill concedes that under our case-law the government need prove only a minimal, or de minimus, effect upon interstate commerce to establish jurisdiction. In fact, this de minimus effect need only be potential. Urban, 404 F.3d at 766. A jury may infer that interstate commerce was minimally affected by a showing that business assets from an establishment that purchased good or services from out-of-state were depleted. See United States v. Haywood, 363 F.3d 200, 210 (3d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Stealing money from a store that buys any of
holding that tavern that  purchased beer from outofstate vendor satisfied interstate commerce requirement in criminal explosives statute recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on 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 recognizing scarborough holding that commerce nexus satisfied upon showing that possessed firearm had traveled at some time in interstate commerce holding that interstate commerce nexus is established where defendant stole less than 100 from bar that imported beer from outofstate