context: . Defendants have also raised the issue of the indictment merely alleging a de minimus effect on interstate commerce. We find this argument unavailing.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 914 F.2d 1442, 1447-48
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that National Labor Relations Board has broad statutory jurisdiction in cases in which "an employer has more than a de mini-mus impact on the flow of interstate commerce"
citation_a.sentence: Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558, 115 S.Ct. 1624 ("[Wjhere a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimus character of individual instances arising under the statute is of no consequence.”); see, e.g., United States v. DiSanto, 86 F.3d 1238 (1st Cir.1996) (holding that restaurant that bought and sold products produced outside of state satisfied interstate commerce requirement for federal arson statute); United States v. Sweet, 548 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir.1977) (holding that tavern that , purchased beer from out-of-state vendor satisfied interstate commerce requirement in criminal explosives statute); Cf. United States v. Butt, 955 F.2d 77, 80 n. 2 (1st Cir.1992), quotinq United States v. Rivera-Medina, 845 F.2d 12, 15 (1st Cir.1988) (stating that "It is well settled that ‘a realistic probability of a de minimis effect on'interstate commerce’ is all that need be shown to establish federal jurisdiction over extortionate crimes affecting interstate commerce.”); United States v. Murphy, 480 F.2d 286, 290 (1st Cir.1973) (holding that de minimus impact on interstate commerce is enough to sustain jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Meat Inspection Act); YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region, Inc. v. NLRB, 914 F.2d 1442, 1447-48 (10th Cir.1990) citing NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U.S. 224, 226, 83 S.Ct. 312, 9 L.Ed.2d 279 (1963) (per curiam) (noting that National Labor Relations Board has broad statutory jurisdiction in cases in which "an employer has more than a de mini-mus impact on the flow of interstate commerce”).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 514 U.S. 558, 558
citation_b.parenthetical: "[Wjhere a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimus character of individual instances arising under the statute is of no consequence."
citation_b.sentence: Lopez, 514 U.S. at 558, 115 S.Ct. 1624 ("[Wjhere a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimus character of individual instances arising under the statute is of no consequence.”); see, e.g., United States v. DiSanto, 86 F.3d 1238 (1st Cir.1996) (holding that restaurant that bought and sold products produced outside of state satisfied interstate commerce requirement for federal arson statute); United States v. Sweet, 548 F.2d 198, 202 (7th Cir.1977) (holding that tavern that , purchased beer from out-of-state vendor satisfied interstate commerce requirement in criminal explosives statute); Cf. United States v. Butt, 955 F.2d 77, 80 n. 2 (1st Cir.1992), quotinq United States v. Rivera-Medina, 845 F.2d 12, 15 (1st Cir.1988) (stating that "It is well settled that ‘a realistic probability of a de minimis effect on'interstate commerce’ is all that need be shown to establish federal jurisdiction over extortionate crimes affecting interstate commerce.”); United States v. Murphy, 480 F.2d 286, 290 (1st Cir.1973) (holding that de minimus impact on interstate commerce is enough to sustain jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Meat Inspection Act); YMCA of the Pikes Peak Region, Inc. v. NLRB, 914 F.2d 1442, 1447-48 (10th Cir.1990) citing NLRB v. Reliance Fuel Oil Corp., 371 U.S. 224, 226, 83 S.Ct. 312, 9 L.Ed.2d 279 (1963) (per curiam) (noting that National Labor Relations Board has broad statutory jurisdiction in cases in which "an employer has more than a de mini-mus impact on the flow of interstate commerce”).