Whether the Hobbs Act, in accordance with constitutional limits, only punishes a robbery when the Government proves that the robbery itself affected interstate commerce

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner Mario Martell Spencer was convicted under the Hobbs Act—which makes it a federal crime to commit a robbery that “affects .. . commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State,” 18 U.S.C. §1951—for the robbery of a small, neighborhood mom-and-pop convenience store. The district court denied Spencer’s motion for a judgment of acquittal on the basis that the conviction exceeded the Government’s Commerce Clause power, notwithstanding the Government’s failure to present any evidence that the robbery itself affected interstate commerce. The district court also imposed a sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice for allegedly “unlawfully influencing a... witness” or attempting to do so, U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 cmt. 4, based on Spencer advising his ex-girlfriend, a potential witness, that she should “do some legal research on .. . pleading the Fifth” if the Government does not offer her anything “in exchange” for her testimony. The district court imposed the enhancement notwithstanding its determination that the ex-girlfriend should, in fact, have legal counsel advise her on her Fifth Amendment rights before testifying if the Government refused to give her immunity. The Eighth Circuit affirmed. This petition presents the following questions: 1. For intrastate robberies that do not otherwise affect “commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction,” 18 U.S.C. §1951(b)(8), does the Hobbs Act, in accordance with constitutional limits, only punish a robbery when the Government proves that the robbery itself affected interstate commerce? ii 2. Does a defendant unlawfully influence a witness for purposes of U.S.S.G. §3C1.1 when a defendant suggests to a witness with undisputed jeopardy of incriminating herself to “research” her Fifth Amendment rights, as the Eighth Circuit held here, or is such conduct lawful, as this Court suggested in Arthur Andersen LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696, 703-04 (2005)? iii