No: 06-1919 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. George Austin

NOT PRECEDENTIAL
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
_______________
No: 06-1919
_______________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
GEORGE AUSTIN,
Appellant
_______________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. No. 05-cr-00280-1)
District Judge: Honorable Eduardo C. Robreno
_______________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
May 11, 2007
Before: RENDELL, JORDAN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges
(Filed May 16, 2007)
_______________
OPINION OF THE COURT
_______________
JORDAN, Circuit Judge.
George Austin appeals from his conviction of one count of conspiracy to commit
Hobbs Act robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)(1); twelve counts of Hobbs Act
robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)(1); and twelve counts of carrying and using a

-- 1 of 5 --

2
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
924(c)(1)(C)(I). He asserts that there was not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that his actions during the course of the robberies had an effect on
interstate commerce, as required by the Hobbs Act. The District Court had jurisdiction
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We exercise appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
For the reasons set forth below, we will affirm.
I.
From January 10, 2005, to February 9, 2005, Austin, with three other men,
committed a series of armed robberies in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Those business
establishments included small grocery stores in residential neighborhoods, convenience
stores such as Sunoco A-Plus markets and 7-Eleven, and Dunkin’ Donuts.
At trial, the business owners and employees testified that Austin stole money from
the registers. In addition, owners and employees testified about the types of products they
sold. All the corner grocery stores sold major brands of cigarettes and Canada Dry
beverages. A wholesale distributor for the major cigarette companies stated that all
cigarettes for the major brands are manufactured outside of Pennsylvania. A Canada-Dry
employee testified that Canada Dry services several of the victimized corner grocery
stores and that all the beverage products it provides are manufactured in New Jersey. A
Dunkin’ Donuts employee testified that the products sold at his shop are from New
Jersey. An employee for a grocery distribution company stated that the goods it provides
to the victimized Sunoco A-Plus markets and the 7-Eleven are shipped from either

-- 2 of 5 --

3
Virginia or New York. A jury concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that Austin’s actions
affected interstate commerce. Austin now argues on appeal that the government failed to
sufficiently establish that the robberies had a negative impact on commerce because “[n]o
owner or employer of any of the stores testified that their business was [a]ffected in any
manner at all.”
II.
We apply a deferential standard of review to determine whether there is legally
sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict. United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180, 187 (3d
Cir. 1998). We do not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses;
rather, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and sustain the
verdict if “any trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting United States v. Voigt, 89 F.3d 1050, 1080 (3d Cir.
1996)).
18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) provides:
Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the
movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or
extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical
violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do
anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
To sustain a conviction for robbery under the Hobbs Act, the government must prove that
the robbery interfered with interstate commerce. United States v. Haywood, 363 F.3d
200, 209 (3d Cir. 2004). See also Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 218 (1960)

-- 3 of 5 --

4
(“The charge that interstate commerce is affected is critical since the Federal
Government’s jurisdiction of this crime rests only on that interference.”) However, if a
defendant’s conduct “produces any interference with or effect upon interstate commerce,
whether slight, subtle or even potential, it is sufficient to uphold a prosecution under [§
1951].” United States. v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 764 (3d Cir. 2005) (quoting Haywood,
363 F.3d at 209-10). In addition, a jury “may infer that interstate commerce was affected
to some minimal degree from a showing that the business assets were depleted.” Id.
(quoting Haywood, 363 F.3d at 210).
In Haywood, we concluded that there was sufficient evidence to sustain a
conviction for interference with commerce by robbery where a bar’s assets were depleted
by the robbery, and the bar sold beer that came from outside the Virgin Islands. 363 F.3d
at 210-11. Here, the owners and employees of the victimized establishments all testified
that Austin stole money from their registers, obviously depleting the assets of those
businesses. In addition, there was testimony that the business establishments all sold
products that came across state lines. That evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of
fact to have concluded that the robberies had at least a slight impact on interstate
commerce. It was unnecessary for the owners to directly testify that their businesses were
affected by the robberies, because a jury “may infer that interstate commerce was affected
to some minimal degree from a showing that the business assets were depleted.” Urban,
404 F.3d at 765 (quoting Haywood, 363 F.3d at 210).

-- 4 of 5 --

5
III.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of conviction for all counts.

-- 5 of 5 --