How have the courts interpreted the Hobbs Act?

We next address defendants' claim that the district court erred in instructing the jury on conspiracy to interfere with and attempted interference with commerce by robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1951 (the Hobbs Act). Because defendants did not object to these instructions at trial, we review for plain error. See United States v. Reza-Ramos, 816 F.3d 1110, 1123 (9th Cir. 2016).

We first turn to the district court's instruction for Count 4, attempted interference with commerce by robbery. Both

Page 12