OPINION

Joseph Mann appeals his convictions and sentences for interference with interstate commerce by means of robbery, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000) (“the Hobbs Act”), and brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000).

On appeal, Mann asserts his conviction under the Hobbs Act was unconstitutional because the Government was required to prove his actions had an impact on interstate commerce that was substantial, but failed to do so. Accordingly, he asserts his robbery conviction cannot stand, and his conviction for brandishing a firearm during the robbery cannot stand. We review these claims de novo. United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 308 (4th Cir. 2002). Mann’s claims are meritless. The Hobbs Act contains a jurisdictional element requiring a case-by-case determination regarding whether the defendant’s conduct impacted interstate commerce. Thus, the Government must prove, as it did here, that the defendant’s actions impacted interstate commerce, not that the impact was substantial. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000); United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d 350 (4th Cir. 2003); United States v. Bailey, 990 F.2d 119, 125 (4th Cir. 1993); United States v. Brantley, 777 F.2d 159, 162 (4th Cir. 1985); see also United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 613, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000); Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 856, 120 S.Ct. 1904, 146 L.Ed.2d 902 (2000); United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 561, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). Consequently, Mann establishes no error in his convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000) and 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (2000).

Accordingly, we affirm Mann’s convictions and sentences. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.