
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leroy J. KELLY, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 02-4380.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 25, 2004.
    Decided: July 27, 2004.
    Eric J. Foster, Law Office of Rick Foster, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant.
    Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, D. Scott Broyles, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    
      Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Leroy J. Kelly pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit and to attempt to commit armed robbery of several restaurants, supermarkets, and convenience stores, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (2000), and two counts of using a firearm during a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). The district court sentenced Kelly to 312 months in prison. Kelly timely appealed, challenging the constitutionality of the Hobbs Act as applied to his ease. The Hobbs Act contains a jurisdictional element requiring a case-by-case determination regarding whether the defendant’s conduct impacted interstate commerce. This jurisdictional requirement can be established by a minimal effect on interstate commerce. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (2000); United States v. Williams, 342 F.3d 350, 354 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 1189, 157 L.Ed.2d 1219 (2004). Our review of the record shows that there was sufficient evidence to establish jurisdiction to prosecute. We find any further challenge to Kelly’s conviction under the Hobbs Act is foreclosed by his guilty plea. Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61, 62-63 n. 2, 96 S.Ct. 241, 46 L.Ed.2d 195 (1975); Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267, 93 S.Ct. 1602, 36 L.Ed.2d 235 (1973). Accordingly, we affirm Kelly’s conviction. 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 the decisional process.

AFFIRMED 
      
       The court previously dismissed Kelly’s appeal as to all other issues.
     