## Facts

- Morris Carter was the elected county recorder in his county.
- Peter Livas owned three real-estate rehabilitation and redevelopment companies and cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as an informant.
- Livas sought (1) a list of homes in foreclosure and (2) a contractor’s license that would allow him to build in the county where Carter held office.
- The government’s evidence at trial included audio and video recordings, hidden-camera footage, and witness testimony describing a series of transactions involving Carter.
- Livas paid Carter money in exchange for foreclosure lists.
- Carter told Livas to bring money to Carter’s office and said Carter would connect him with someone involved in administering the written test for the contractor’s license.
- At Carter’s office, Carter directed Livas to pay money by giving it to a subcontractor and sent Livas upstairs to meet an individual who could help with the contractor’s license.
- Livas paid the subcontractor in connection with obtaining the contractor’s license.
- As part of the investigation, Livas took the contractor’s license test and intentionally failed, but a new exam with a passing score was completed for him.
- Carter later sent the individual who helped with the test a thank-you note and some cash.
- Carter was indicted and convicted of extortion in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
- On appeal, Carter argued the evidence was insufficient to prove that his conduct affected interstate commerce.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence at trial was sufficient to establish the Hobbs Act’s interstate-commerce element—i.e., that Carter’s extortionate conduct affected commerce “in any way or degree.”

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed Carter’s conviction.
- The court held that the government presented sufficient evidence from which a rational jury could find that Carter’s extortion scheme affected interstate commerce as required by the Hobbs Act.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Hobbs Act, the government must prove an effect on interstate commerce, but the required effect may be minimal; the statute reaches conduct that affects commerce “in any way or degree.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
- A public official may commit Hobbs Act extortion “under color of official right” when he obtains payments to which he is not entitled, knowing the payments are made in return for official action.
- On a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and asks whether any rational jury could have found the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- When the extortionate conduct targets or involves a business engaged in commercial activity, the interstate-commerce element may be satisfied if the scheme’s natural consequences include even a slight, potential, or indirect effect on commerce.

## Conclusion

United States v. Carter, 530 F.3d 565 (2008), involved a county recorder convicted of Hobbs Act extortion based on evidence that he took money connected to providing foreclosure lists and facilitating a corrupted contractor-licensing process for an FBI informant who ran real-estate businesses; the Seventh Circuit affirmed, concluding that the trial evidence permitted a rational jury to find the required effect on interstate commerce.
