With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Jeanette had been operating the speakeasy for “years” at the time of the robbery. JA 1157. In her testimony, Jeanette agreed that the speakeasy was a business and indicated that she was making a profit. Id. at 1156, 1163 (“[W]e would purchase more beer, alcohol, and sometimes I might have enough to pay a bill to help me with my — send my child to school.”). Like in Haywood, Jeanette sold alcohol that was imported from out of state. Although that connection to interstate commerce is admittedly indirect, it is no more so than in the cases discussed above and it is a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce under our jurisprudence. See Urban, 404 F.3d at 761, 767; Haywood, 363 F.3d at 211; Clausen, 328 F.3d at 711-12; see also United States v. Elias, 285 F.3d 183, 189 (2d Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mapp, 170 F.3d 328, 336 n.

A: holding jurisdiction over nonresident defendant existed where note was payable in new york contained new york choice of law clause and proceeds were used to finance new york limited partnership
B: holding that outofstate defendants transmittal into new york of ceaseanddesist letter to new york plaintiff for purported trademark infringement was insufficient to create jurisdiction over defendant in a new york declaratory judgment action
C: holding that for purposes of longarm jurisdiction because plaintiff was employed in new york the original event causing his injury occurred in new york
D: holding that the interstate commerce requirement for a hobbs act violation was met where the defendant robbed a new york grocery store that sold goods purchased in new york but produced outside of new york because the robbery depleted assets that might have been utilized to purchase outofstate goods
D.