F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir.2001) (“Congress maintains similar powers over Puerto Rico as it possesses over the federal states.”). In fact, as early as 1953, courts began to observe that “although Puerto Rico is not a state in the federal Union, ‘it would seem to have become a State within a common and accepted meaning of the word.’ ” United States v. Steele, 685 F.2d 793, 805 n. 7 (3d Cir.1982). Additionally, many courts have recognized that, under certain statutes, Puerto Rico “may fall within the meaning of the word ‘State.’ ” Americana, 368 F.2d at 435; see also Puerto Rico Dep’t of Consumer Affairs v. Isla Petroleum Corp., 485 U.S. 495, 499, 108 S.Ct. 1350, 99 L.Ed.2d 582 (1988) (treating Puerto Rico the same as a state for purposes of the Supremacy Clause); Steele, 685 F.2d at 804-05 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Lopez Andino, 831 F.2d 1164,
holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for corrupt persuasion of a jury witness under either 18 usc  1503 which prohibits obstruction of justice or 18 usc  1512 which prohibits tampering with a witness holding that the defendant could be prosecuted for transporting stolen motor vehicles in interstate commerce under either 18 usc  2314 which prohibits interstate transportation of stolen goods or 18 usc  2312 which specifically prohibits interstate transportation of stolen motor vehicles and airplanes holding that puerto rico is a state within the meaning of 18 usc  1952 which prohibits interstate and foreign travel in the aid of racketeering enterprises holding that the government need not prove that interstate transport was foreseeable in order to obtain a conviction under 18 usc  2314 which prohibits the interstate transportation of stolen goods holding that a state is not a person within the meaning of  1983