United States of America v. STEPHON DEMUS , RYAN CLARK, and MARLON BARKSDALE

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
Nos. 24-1788, 24-2168 & 24-2388
U NITED S TATES OF A MERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
S TEPHON DEMUS , R YAN C LARK,
and M ARLON BARKSDALE
Defendants-Appellants.
____________________
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
No. 1:21-CR-00530 — John F. Kness, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED S EPTEMBER 3, 2025 — DECIDED F EBRUARY 20, 2026
____________________
Before S CUDDER , K IRSCH , and PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
K IRSCH , Circuit Judge. Stephon Demus, Ryan Clark, and
Marlon Barksdale were convicted of Hobbs Act robbery and
using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of
violence. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 924(c)(1)(A). The facts are sim-
ple. They robbed at gunpoint several customers at a conven-
ience store—one person just outside and several others inside
the store—causing it to temporarily close. They first argue on

-- 1 of 6 --

2 Nos. 24-1788, 24-2168, 24-2388
appeal that the robbery did not obstruct, delay, or affect inter-
state commerce. However, the robbery both prevented com-
merce from occurring and disrupted commerce in action, so
this challenge to their convictions fails. In the alternative, they
argue that the jury may have convicted based only on the rob-
bery of the customer outside the store which, they contend,
did not affect interstate commerce. But this argument was
never presented to the jury. We therefore affirm.
I
Stephon Demus, Ryan Clark, and Marlon Barksdale
robbed several customers in and outside of J&J Food and Gro-
cery (J&J), a 24-hour convenience store in Chicago. Around 7
pm each evening, J&J closes its sales floor, allowing customers
only to enter a small vestibule where they can place, receive,
and pay for orders. The crime occurred late at night and pro-
gressed rapidly. The defendants first robbed at gunpoint an
individual who was standing on the sidewalk just outside the
vestibule. They then proceeded into the vestibule, where they
robbed additional customers in line at gunpoint. The defend-
ants neither made demands of J&J employees nor attempted
to steal from the store itself. After the robbery, the store shut
down to allow the police to investigate the crimes. One em-
ployee estimated the store was shut down for half an hour;
another figured it was an hour.
The defendants were eventually indicted for, and ulti-
mately convicted of, one count of Hobbs Act robbery and one
count of brandishing a firearm in relation to such a robbery.
18 U.S.C. §§ 1951(a), 924(c)(1)(A). The defendants then filed a
motion for judgment of acquittal that the district court denied.
Now, they appeal, seeking reversal on alternative grounds.
First, they contend that the robbery did not obstruct, delay, or

-- 2 of 6 --

Nos. 24-1788, 24-2168, 24-2388 3
affect commerce because it was of customers who, in their
view, were not engaged in commerce for the purposes of the
Hobbs Act. Second, they argue that even if robbing the indi-
viduals inside the store implicated the Hobbs Act, robbing the
individual outside the store did not. They claim that the gen-
eral verdict leaves open the possibility that the jury inappro-
priately relied on the robbery outside the store as the sole ba-
sis for conviction.
II
A
We review a denial of a judgment of acquittal de novo, re-
viewing “the evidence presented at trial in the light most fa-
vorable to the government and draw[ing] all reasonable infer-
ences in its favor.” United States v. Sorensen, 134 F.4th 493, 498
(7th Cir. 2025). “The language of the Hobbs Act is unmistaka-
bly broad.” Taylor v. United States, 579 U.S. 301, 305 (2016).
Making it a federal crime to “in any way or degree obstruct[],
delay[], or affect[] commerce ... by robbery,” 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a), the Act confers jurisdiction in a manner coextensive
with the Commerce Clause. United States v. Bailey, 227 F.3d
792, 797 (7th Cir. 2000). As such, the government need only
show the robbery had a “de minimis or otherwise slight effect
on interstate commerce.” Id. And such an effect need not be
actual: we have found even “a realistic probability of an ef-
fect” can suffice. United States v. Anderson, 809 F.2d 1281, 1286
(7th Cir. 1987). The government has cleared this low bar.
The parties agree that J&J engages in interstate commerce.
Since the robbery forced J&J to temporarily shut down, there
plainly exists more than the “realistic probability” that it ob-
structed, delayed, or affected interstate commerce. See id. For

-- 3 of 6 --

4 Nos. 24-1788, 24-2168, 24-2388
the time J&J was closed, the store was prevented from engag-
ing in commerce, reducing the store’s profits. United States v.
Hunter, 932 F.3d 610, 623 (7th Cir. 2019).
Further, when “defendants obstruct[] commerce in
a … literal sense” by robbing someone directly engaged in in-
terstate commerce, they commit a Hobbs Act robbery. United
States v. Thomas, 159 F.3d 296, 297 (7th Cir. 1998). At the center
of the inquiry is the “nexus between [the robbery] and inter-
state commerce.” United States v. Mattson, 671 F.2d 1020, 1025
(7th Cir. 1982) (finding that to constitute a Hobbs Act crime,
the offense itself must affect interstate commerce). For exam-
ple, in Thomas, we found the defendant violated the Hobbs
Act when he robbed an informant who had “arranged to pur-
chase” drugs and had arrived at the place appointed for the
transaction. 159 F.3d at 297. There, the Hobbs Act applied be-
cause the robbery disrupted a specific “transaction in [inter-
state] commerce.” See United States v. Marrero, 299 F.3d 653,
654 (7th Cir. 2002).
Here, the customers were standing feet away from the
store clerk, waiting in line to purchase items from the store.
This conduct established a sufficient nexus with commerce for
the purposes of the Hobbs Act.
B
The defendants contend that their Hobbs Act conviction
fails for another reason. They argue that the robbery of the
man outside the store did not affect interstate commerce, and
since it is at least theoretically possible that the jury could
have convicted only based on that robbery, the government
failed to prove that the robbery affected interstate commerce.
For this argument, they cite Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298

-- 4 of 6 --

Nos. 24-1788, 24-2168, 24-2388 5
(1957), where the Supreme Court held that a verdict must be
set aside when it “is supportable on one [legal] ground, but
not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the
jury selected.” Id. at 312; Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46,
58-59 (1991) (the rule announced in Yates applies only to mis-
takes about the law, not mistakes about the weight or factual
import of evidence). But the defendants’ reliance on Yates is
flawed.
A successful Yates argument requires that the jury was pre-
sented with two theories, one of which is legally inadequate.
See id. at 59. This did not occur here. The defendants were
each charged with a single count of Hobbs Act robbery. If the
events, taken together, constituted a single robbery, then the
defendants’ argument raises only a sufficiency of the evidence
issue and therefore cannot support a Yates claim. See id. at 59.
So, to be a valid Yates argument, the defendants’ contention
must reduce to a claim that the events inside and outside the
store were separate robberies with different effects on inter-
state commerce. In other words, the jury must have had the
option of convicting either on the theory that the events taken
together constituted a single robbery, or on the theory that
they constituted multiple robberies, at least one of which was
of the man outside the store. Then, the claim would be that
the second theory was legally invalid as applied here, because
the robbery of the man outside the store did not affect inter-
state commerce.
But the jury was not presented with such a second legal
theory. Even now, the defendants don’t point to evidence sub-
stantiating the contention that two separate theories of con-
viction were presented to the jury. Accordingly, the defend-
ants’ Yates argument fails.

-- 5 of 6 --

6 Nos. 24-1788, 24-2168, 24-2388
With regard to the firearms convictions, the defendants as-
sert only that they must be vacated if the Hobbs Act robbery
convictions are reversed. As we affirm the robbery convic-
tions, so too do we affirm the firearms convictions.
A FFIRMED

-- 6 of 6 --