United States v. Clarence Powell
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18416
| 3rd Cir. | 2012Background
- Clarence Powell was convicted under the Hobbs Act for two home robberies of business owners' residences.
- Powell and codefendants targeted immigrant business owners to steal earnings from interstate commerce engaged businesses.
- Robberies occurred after following store owners from their businesses to their homes, with violence and firearms used.
- Evidence showed proceeds (cash, receipts, assets) were taken from two businesses: Star Wigs and Dollar Plus Discount.
- District Court instructed the jury on a de minimis effect on interstate commerce; Powell challenged sufficiency and the jury instruction.
- Court analyzes whether home robberies can satisfy Hobbs Act jurisdiction under the de minimis and depletion-of-assets theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hobbs Act nexus can be satisfied by home robberies targeting business assets. | Powell contends targeting individuals at home is insufficient for jurisdiction. | Powell argues only business-venue robberies meet jurisdiction; home robberies require stronger link. | Yes; targeting business assets at home satisfies nexus. |
| Whether de minimis effect on interstate commerce suffices for conviction in home-robbery cases. | Powell asserts no jurisdiction unless substantial link to interstate commerce. | Powell relies on stricter limits; government only needs potential minimal effect. | De minimis effect is sufficient for substantive Hobbs Act conviction. |
| Whether the depletion-of-assets theory supports the jurisdictional nexus in home robberies. | Powell challenges applicability to home robberies; asserts no depletion link. | Government may show depletion of business assets as sufficient nexus. | Depletion-of-assets theory applies and supports nexus here. |
| Whether the jury instruction on interstate-commerce nexus accurately states the law. | Powell proposed a substantial-connection requirement for home robberies. | District Court properly followed de minimis framework and depletion guidance. | Instruction correctly stated circuit law; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the court should have required a substantial connection between the home robbery and interstate commerce for conviction. | Powell urges a bright-line rule differentiating home from business premises. | Court should not create limitless jurisdiction; case-specific nexus suffices. | No bright-line rule; case-specific nexus supports conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Walker, 657 F.3d 160 (3d Cir. 2011) (requires de minimis or potential effect on commerce for Hobbs Act)
- United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754 (3d Cir. 2005) (affirms potential, not actual, effect standard for substantive Hobbs Act)
- United States v. Haywood, 363 F.3d 200 (3d Cir. 2004) (supports de minimis effect in Hobbs Act conviction)
- United States v. Le, 256 F.3d 1229 (11th Cir. 2001) (accepts targeting business assets connected to interstate commerce)
- United States v. Diaz, 248 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2001) (jurisdictional nexus based on victim’s interstate commerce role)
- United States v. Nguyen, 246 F.3d 52 (1st Cir. 2001) (home robbery linked to business in interstate commerce)
- United States v. Jimenez-Torres, 435 F.3d 3 (1st Cir. 2006) (depletion of assets as basis for Hobbs Act nexus)
- United States v. Wang, 222 F.3d 234 (6th Cir. 2000) (home robbery of business-linked victim requires substantial nexus)
- United States v. Perrotta, 313 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2002) (jurisdiction could be satisfied by direct participation or depletion effects)
- United States v. Cerilli, 603 F.2d 415 (3d Cir. 1979) (early articulation of Hobbs Act commerce nexus)
- United States v. Mazzei, 521 F.2d 639 (3d Cir. 1975) (support for economic nexus in Hobbs Act)