With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Grocery sold beer produced outside the United States and fruit grown outside New York. According to Elias, the fact that “the Aybar Grocery may have purchased some items that had been originally produced out of state or that had at one time traveled interstate is not itself sufficient to establish that a robbery there affected interstate commerce, without any evidence that Mr. Aybar bought anything from out of state suppliers.” We do not agree that the jurisdictional nexus fails absent evidence that some of the products sold at Aybar Grocery were purchased direct from out-of-state suppliers. The jurisdictional element of a Hobbs Act violation may be satisfied by evidence demonstrating an indirect effect on interstate commerce. See United States v. Jones, 30 F.3d 276, 285 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). The jurisdictional nexus was held sufficient

A: holding to the same effect
B: holding that certainty or even likelihood of such an effect is not a requirement
C: recognizing it is the law in our circuit that if the defendants conduct produces any interference with or effect upon interstate commerce whether slight subtle or even potential it is sufficient to uphold a prosecution under the hobbs act internal quotation omitted
D: holding that an effect on commerce is sufficient even though the effect is not immediate or direct or significant but instead is postponed indirect and slight
D.