judgment of the district court is affirmed. 1 . The Honorable Rodney W. Sippell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 2 . Trotter frames his argument on appeal as a challenge to the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Because Trotter was charged with an offense against the laws of the United States, the court clearly had jurisdiction and his motion to dismiss was properly denied. 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (“The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction ... of all offenses against the laws of the United States.”). A challenge to the constitutionality of a statute as applied to a particular defendant does not extinguish jurisdiction. See, e.g. United States v. Foster, 443 F.3d 978, 981 (8th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The substance of Trotter's argument, however,
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 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 the meaning of commerce element in a different federal statute the hobbs act to be a question of law holding that the district court properly denied defendants motion to dismiss based upon a lack of jurisdiction when defendant challenged the interstate commerce element of the hobbs act 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