With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 222 F.3d 234, 240 (6th Cir. 2000). The Court concluded that, when the Government seeks to establish a nexus between an individual victim and a business engaged in interstate commerce, “that connection must be a substantial one — not one that is fortuitous or speculative.” Id. at 239-40. In Wang, some of the stolen money belonged to the victims’ restaurant that operated in interstate commerce but, because the robbery was of a home, the Government needed to do more than show that the victims owned a business. Id. at 240. The appellants also note cases in which the interstate commerce nexus was held to be too tenuous because the robbery was directed at an individual in his or her personal capacity rather than at a business. See United States v. Perrotta, 313 F.3d 33, 38-40 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Quigley, 53 F.3d 909, 910-11

A: holding that the interstate commerce nexus was too attenuated where extortion was directed at a victim who worked for an entity engaged in interstate commerce but was aimed at him in his personal capacity not in his official capacity
B: holding that the government can satisfy the hobbs act interstate commerce requirement by showing that the robbery resulted in the closure of a business engaged in interstate commerce
C: holding that the hobbs act did not apply to the robbery of a computer company executive in his home even though the crime may have prevented him from getting to work or making busi ness calls because his only connection with interstate commerce was his employment by a business engaged in interstate commerce
D: recognizing that  the interstate nexus requirement is satisfied by proof of a probable or potential impact on interstate commerce
A.