_____________ No. 96-1094SI _____________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Southern v. * District of Iowa. * Robert Clyde Hoskins, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. * _____________ Submitted: May 14, 1996 Filed: May 22, 1996 _____________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. _____________

PER CURIAM.

After committing a series of restaurant robberies, Robert Clyde Hoskins was charged with conspiring to commit robberies affecting interstate commerce in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1994).

Hoskins entered a conditional plea of guilty to the charge and appealed.

Relying on United States v. Lopez, 115 S. Ct. 1624 (1995), Hoskins contends the district court improperly denied his motion to dismiss. Hoskins argues that his actions did not violate the Hobbs Act because the statute was not meant to encompass the robbery of local businesses. Hoskins's argument, however, is foreclosed by our recent holding in United States v. Farmer, 73 F.3d 836, 843 (8th Cir. 1996). Likewise, Hoskins's argument that the superseding indictment fails to allege a violation of the Hobbs Act is foreclosed by our contrary holding in Farmer, id. at 843-44. We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

-2-