With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the out-of-state parent corporation; and (4) all cash receipts of the restaurant were deposited at a bank and then immediately transferred to other out-of-state accounts controlled by the Kentucky corporate parent for purchasing supplies from out-of-state vendors. These facts demonstrate that the robbery of KFC’s cash receipts that Tate attempted to deposit interfered with the movement of restaurant funds in the stream of interstate commerce and affected the restaurant’s financial ability to make purchases from out-of-state suppliers. Thus, the Court concludes that there was a sufficient interstate nexus to create federal jurisdiction over the offense. See United States v. Nguyen, 155 F.3d 1219, 1224-25 (10th Cir.1998), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1167, 119 S.Ct. 1086, 148 L.Ed.2d 87 (1999) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Miles, 122 F.3d 235, 236-37,

A: holding that because the victims which were robbed of money by the defendant did substantial business in beer wine and tobacco products virtually none of which originated in the state where the victims did business the government had demonstrated a de minimis effect on interstate commerce
B: holding that the requisite effect on interstate commerce for a 18 usc  1951 conviction is demonstrated by inter alia evidence that restaurant robbed by defendant had often purchased food products from outofstate vendors and that the money taken by defendant would have been used to buy more food products
C: holding that restaurant that bought and sold products produced outside of state satisfied interstate commerce requirement for federal arson statute
D: recognizing products liability and products actions based on negligence as part of the general maritime law
B.