Whether the court of appeals' opinion conflicts with United States v. Lopez regarding the jurisdictional element of a federal statute

QUESTION PRESENTED In United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), this Court held that a federal statute’s interstate commerce “jurisdictional element” can prevent the statute’s reach from exceeding its constitutional grasp by “ensur[ing], through case-by-case inquiry, that the [transaction] in question affects interstate commerce.” Id. at 561. Does the court of appeals’ opinion conflict with Lopez insofar as it holds that a jurisdictional element was satisfied by evidence that the transactions in question employed facilities that can be used to conduct interstate or international transactions, without requiring evidence that they actually were used to conduct such transactions? RULE 14.1(b) STATEMENT (i) All