United States v. Mark Williams, 531 F. App'x 270

DEA investigated Ortiz for drug distribution and money laundering; Ortiz and Williams devised a plan to steal heroin from Ortiz's supplier via a sham traffic stop.
UC and Ortiz met to execute the scheme; Ortiz and Williams planned a second sham stop to steal money from UC2.
Williams took a Philadelphia police property receipt and showed Ortiz how to fill it with a fictitious number to deceive UC2.
Williams, on restricted duty, recruited a friend, who would drive a marked vehicle and pose as an undercover officer.
On July 9, 2010, Williams and accomplice prepared to execute the stop in uniform with a police van, but authorities aborted the operation and Williams was later arrested.
Williams was convicted of attempted Hobbs Act robbery; the appellate court reviews the sufficiency of the evidence for a substantial step toward the crime.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the evidence shows a substantial step toward Hobbs Act robbery	Williams argues there was no substantial step	Government contends actions constituted a substantial step	Yes, evidence was a substantial step

United States v. Powell, 693 F.3d 398 (3d Cir. 2012) (establishes Hobbs Act elements and proof beyond a reasonable doubt)
United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3d Cir. 2006) (defines 'substantial step' in attempt liability)
United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (explains substantive nature of substantial step)
United States v. Del Carmen Ramirez, 823 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1987) (example of substantial step toward Hobbs Act robbery)