SEYMOUR, Chief Judge.
Defendant Charles Zeigler appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. Mr. Zeigler was convicted by a jury of eight separate counts, the first six of which are at issue in this appeal. Each of the six counts charged Mr. Zeigler with carrying a firearm during a robbery affecting interstate commerce, in violation of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 924(c)(1). Mr. Zeigler contends that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish the effect on interstate commerce necessary to confer federal jurisdiction under the Act. On cross appeal, the government argues that Mr. Zeigler’s sentence is illegal because the district court did not impose an enhancement [488]*488for Mr. Zeigler’s second and subsequent convictions as required by section 924(c). For the reasons stated below, we AFFIRM the convictions but REMAND for resentencing.
I.
BACKGROUND
The charges against Mr. Zeigler arose from a crime spree that resulted in the armed robbery of six separate businesses in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The robberies discussed below correspond to counts one through six respectively. We view the evidence, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in the light most favorable to the government. United States v. Grimes, 967 F.2d 1468, 1472 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 355, 121 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992); United States v. Haskins, 737 F.2d 844, 846 (10th Cir.1984).
The robbery spree began on August 29, 1991, when Mr. Zeigler robbed the Lucky Stop convenience store of $800 cash. Lucky Stop sells a variety of goods, many of which it buys from Affiliated Food Stores, Inc., a Tulsa-based food supplier. Affiliated Foods purchases many of its products from sources outside Oklahoma. Thus, Lucky Stop indirectly receives goods that originate outside the state. For example, Lucky Stop sells cigarettes and candy bars that it buys from Affiliated Foods. Affiliated Foods purchases the cigarettes from North Carolina and the candy products from New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Affiliated Foods also supplies Lucky Stop with canned goods and paper products that are manufactured outside Oklahoma.
-On September 1, Mr. Zeigler robbed a Vickers gas station and escaped with about $650 taken from the cash register and floor safe. In addition to selling gas, Vickers sells tobacco products, candy, drugs, chips, and general food products. Most, if not all, of the products Vickers sells are purchased directly from the Harrison Company located in Shreveport, Louisiana. The money Mr. Zeigler took from Vickers would have been used to purchase other products to sell in the store, and it is undisputed that the robbery affected the business.
The third robbery occurred on September 12, when Mr. Zeigler robbed the Apeo Hudson Oil station of $160. This service station sells gasoline as well as cigarettes, beer, candy, chips, magazines, and various beverages. Over fifty percent of the products that Apeo Hudson Oil sells are manufactured or produced outside Oklahoma. The money taken by Mr. Zeigler would have been used to replenish goods sold in the store and to continue the business.
Mr. Zeigler continued his crime spree on September 13 by robbing Mazzio’s Pizza restaurant of approximately $300. Ninety-five percent of the products Mazzio’s uses to make its food comes from outside the state. It is uneontroverted that the robbery affected Mazzio’s business and that the money Mr. Zeigler took would have been used in part to purchase more products.
One day later, Mr. Zeigler robbed Keith’s Food Store of between $350 and $500. Keith’s Food Store spends between $3000 and $4000 a month to purchase grocery products, and approximately ninety-five percent of the products sold in the store comes from outside Oklahoma. For example, the store purchases various products from Nabisco in New Jersey, from Nestle in Maryland, and from Texas and North Carolina. The owner of Keith’s Food Store testified that the robbery affected his business and that the money taken by Mr. Zeigler would have been used in part to pay for more goods. On cross-examination, the store owner testified that he was not certain whether the store spent more or less than average on out-of-state goods for the month of the robbery or for the months prior to and following the robbery.
Mr. Zeigler’s sixth and final robbery occurred on September 16 when he entered Rex’s Fried Chicken Restaurant carrying a gun, ordered all the employees to sit on the floor behind the counter, and absconded with over $1500 from two separate cash registers. All the chicken sold by the Rex’s chain, including the restaurant Mr. Zeigler robbed, is purchased from Bingham Foods located in Springfield, Missouri. Rex’s also purchases breading formula, onion rings, and honey [489]*489from sources outside Oklahoma. The owner of Rex’s restaurants stated that the $1500 Mr. Zeigler took would have been used to buy more chicken, to pay bills, employees, rent, utilities, and taxes, and that the robbery had a direct impact on the bottom line of the business. On cross-examination, Rex’s owner testified that she purchased “about the same” amount of out-of-state goods in the month following the robbery as she did in September, the month of the robbery. She also testified that she was probably not late paying her September bill for out-of-state goods for the robbed restaurant because she is able to draw money from other restaurants if needed to pay bills.
II.
FEDERAL JURISDICTION UNDER THE HOBBS ACT
Having been convicted on all six counts, Mr. Zeigler now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support federal jurisdiction over any of these counts under the Hobbs Act. He contends the government failed to prove the robberies had any effect on interstate commerce.
The Hobbs Act provides for the punishment of anyone who “in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do.” 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (1988) (emphasis added). The statute broadly defines the term “commerce” to encompass “all commerce between any point in a State, ... and any point outside thereof; ... and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.” ' Id. § 1951(b)(3).
Hobbs Act jurisdiction is based on Congress’ broad authority to regulate interstate commerce. As the Supreme Court noted in Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960), the Hobbs Act “speaks in broad language, manifesting a purpose to use all the constitutional power Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce by extortion, robbery or physical violence. The Act outlaws such interference ‘in any way or degree.’ ” Id. at 215, 80 S.Ct. at 272 (citing 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a)); see also United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371, 373, 98 S.Ct. 1112, 1113, 55 L.Ed.2d 349 (1978) (rejecting any limitation of the Hobbs Act to “racketeering” only and concluding that words used by Congress in the Act “do not lend themselves to restrictive interpretation.”) ,1
A. Effectr-Onr-Commerce Requirement
In accordance with the plain language of the statute, this court has held that the jurisdictional predicate of the Hobbs Act can be satisfied by a showing of “any de minimis effect on commerce.” United States v. Boston, 718 F.2d 1511, 1516 (10th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 974, 104 S.Ct. 2352, 80 L.Ed.2d 825 (1984); see United States v. Lotspeich, 796 F.2d 1268, 1270 (10th Cir.1986) (“The Hobbs Act requires no more than a showing of a limited effect on interstate commerce.”); United States v. Norris, 792 F.2d 956, 958 (10th Cir.1986) (“A de minimis effect on commerce has been held to be enough to violate § 1951.”); see also United States v. Brown, 959 F.2d 63, 67 (6th Cir.1992) (citing cases from numerous other circuits accepting de minimis rule). The minimal effect on commerce may be established by evidence of a “mere ‘depletion of asséts’ of a firm engaged in interstate commerce.” Norris, 792 F.2d at 958; see Boston, 718 F.2d at 1516. Under the “depletion of assets” theory,
[490]*490commerce is affected when an enterprise, which either is actively engaged in interstate commerce or customarily purchases items in interstate commerce, has its assets depleted ..., thereby curtailing the victim’s potential as a purchaser of such goods.
United States v. Elders, 569 F.2d 1020, 1025 (7th Cir.1978).
In United States v. Whitt, 718 F.2d 1494, 1500 (10th Cir.1983), a case involving kickbacks paid to Oklahoma county officials by various vendors, this court approved jury instructions on the depletion of assets theory.2 See also Boston, 718 F.2d at 1516-17. The defendant-county commissioner argued that in one of the three extortion counts there was no evidence the vendor was involved in interstate commerce. We acknowledged defendant’s claim, but nevertheless upheld the conviction on this count because evidence showed the county’s assets were depleted as a result of the kickback scheme. Whitt, 718 F.2d at 1500. Given the reduction in the county’s assets and the county’s regular practice of purchasing goods in interstate commerce, the evidence was sufficient “for the jury to make the required finding to support the conviction on this count.” Id. Significantly, there was no evidence that the county actually purchased fewer goods as a result of the kickback scheme.
The fact that the Hobbs Act also prohibits “attempted” robbery or extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a), lends credence to the expansive interpretation courts have given to the statute. Many courts, including this one, have sustained jurisdiction under the Hobbs Act in cases of attempted robbery or attempted extortion presenting only potential effects on interstate commerce. In Lotspeich, 796 F.2d 1268, for example, the defendant was convicted of attempting to extort money from a racing association promoting the development of a horse-racing track. The defendant argued on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to establish an effect on interstate commerce. We held that the government’s evidence showed “the nexus between Lotsp-eich’s attempted extortion and interstate commerce was well above the de minimis effect level” required by the Act. Id. at 1270. We then listed the evidence justifying jurisdiction under the Act: (1) twenty percent of the racing association’s stock was sold outside Oklahoma, (2) the racing association hired employees from out of state, (3) the proposed track was to be located on U.S. Highway 75 with the hopes of attracting out-of-state customers, and (4) the defendant was to be paid his fee in Wichita, Kansas. Id. “Under these circumstances, ... Lotspeich’s attempted extortion activities affected interstate commerce.” Id.
The holdings in Lotspeich and other cases illustrate how little the government must show to satisfy the jurisdictional element of the Hobbs Act. See, e.g., Boston, 718 F.2d at 1516-17 (government need only prove that defendant “ ‘actually or potentially obstructed, delayed or affected interstate commerce or attempted to do so.’ ”); see also United States v. Brown, 959 F.2d 63, 67-68 (6th Cir.1992) (evidence in attempted robbery case sufficient if it shows realistic probability of depletion of assets); United States v. Curdo, 759 F.2d 237, 241-42 (2d Cir.) (in attempted extortion case, effect on commerce need only be “potential or subtle”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 848, 106 S.Ct. 142, 88 L.Ed.2d 117 (1985); United States v. Staszcuk, 517 F.2d 53, 60 (7th Cir.) (jurisdictional element satisfied by “realistic probability” that extortionate conduct will have some effect on commerce), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 837, 96 S.Ct. 65, 46 L.Ed.2d 56 (1975).
[491]*491
B. Evidence Was Sufficient To Support Conviction
“The evidence — both direct and circumstantial, together with the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom — is sufficient if, when taken in the light most favorable to the government, a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Hooks, 780 F.2d 1526, 1531 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1128, 106 S.Ct. 1657, 90 L.Ed.2d 199 (1986). In making our determination, we review the record de novo. United States v. Grimes, 967 F.2d 1468, 1472 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 355, 121 L.Ed.2d 269 (1992). Applying the depletion of assets theory,3 we conclude that the evidence was sufficient on all six counts to support Mr. Zeigler’s convictions under the Hobbs Act.
1. All Six Businesses Were Engaged in Interstate Commerce
The evidence is uncontroverted that all six victimized businesses were engaged in interstate commerce. Each of the businesses except Lucky Stop purchased the majority of its products directly from out-of-state suppliers. Lucky Stop purchased goods from an Oklahoma distributor who in turn purchased the goods it supplied to Lucky Stop from outside the state. This indirect link to interstate commerce is sufficient to establish that Lucky Stop was engaged in interstate commerce. See Brown, 959 F.2d at 68 (requisite effect exists where product sold by local distributor to local bar was manufactured out of state); United States v. Cerilli, 603 F.2d 415, 424 (3rd Cir.1979) (depletion of assets theory applies where goods purchased by victim originate out of state), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1043, 100 S.Ct. 728, 62 L.Ed.2d 728 (1980); United States v. DeMet, 486 F.2d 816, 821-22 (7th Cir.1973) (jurisdictional element satisfied where products bought from in-state suppliers but manufactured outside state), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 969, 94 S.Ct. 1991, 40 L.Ed.2d 558 (1974). We hold that the evidence in this case was sufficient to show that all six businesses were engaged in interstate commerce.
2. Depletion Of Assets
Viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the government, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to infer that the depletion of the assets of all six businesses obstructed, delayed, or affected interstate commerce. The money taken in the robberies ranged from a low of $160 to a high of approximately $1500, amounts we do not consider so trivial as to automatically place these robberies beyond the reach of the Act. See, e.g., United States v. Augello, 451 F.2d 1167, 1170 (2d Cir.1971) ($100 taken directly from restaurant’s cash register to pay extortionist showed depletion of assets, “which by itself may impair the efficient conduct of [restaurant’s] business sufficiently to affect commerce”), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1070, 92 S.Ct. 1518, 31 L.Ed.2d 802 (1972); United States v. Provenzano, 334 F.2d 678, 692 (3rd Cir.) (“The specific amount of such money obtained by extortion or the precise manner or degree to which it had an effect on the business is of no consequence.”), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 947, 85 S.Ct. 440, 13 L.Ed.2d 544 (1964).
Not only is the evidence undisputed that the businesses’ assets were depleted in the [492]*492robberies of Lucky Stop, Vickers, Apeo Hudson Oil, and Mazzio’s Pizza (counts one through four respectively), it is also uncon-troverted that the money Mr. Zeigler took was destined to be used, at least in part, to purchase other interstate goods. Because the Hobbs Act only requires a de minimis affect on commerce “in any way or degree,” the evidence presented in these four counts was sufficient to support the jury’s conclusion that the robberies affected interstate commerce.
While conceding that there was a depletion of assets in each of the six robberies, Mr. Zeigler contends that there was no showing of an effect on commerce, especially with respect to the robberies of Keith’s Food Store and Rex’s Fried Chicken Restaurant, counts five and six. In support of his argument for counts five and six, Mr. Zeigler points to testimony elicited on cross-examination which casts some doubt on whether the depletion of these businesses’ assets actually resulted in the purchase of fewer goods. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, however, we conclude for both counts five and six that the cross-examination testimony is not so overwhelming that no jury could reasonably infer that the depletion of these businesses’ assets obstructed, delayed, or affected interstate commerce to the de minimis level required by the statute.
The cross-examination testimony of Mr. Keith DeWitt, the owner of Keith’s Food Store, simply shows that Mr. DeWitt was uncertain whether the store actually purchased fewer out-of-state goods as a result of the robbery.4 His testimony is not so conclusive that it would preclude a reasonable jury from concluding that Keith’s Store actually purchased fewer interstate goods.
Similarly, Mr. Zeigler was charged in count six with taking $1500 from Rex’s Fried Chicken Restaurant, a business that purchases all of its chicken and breading formula, as well as numerous other products, directly from out-of-state suppliers. The owner testified that the monies taken would have been used to purchase more interstate goods and to pay employees, rent, utilities, and taxes. She also testified that the robbery affected the bottom line of the business. On cross-examination, she testified that, with respect to the restaurant Mr. Zeigler robbed,5 she probably purchased “about the same” amount of chicken and other out-of-state products in October, the month following the robbery, as in September, the month of the robbery. She also stated that she was probably not late with her September bills for out-of-state goods because she was able to draw money from some of her other stores. Rec., vol. Ill, at 108-09. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we believe a reasonable jury could conclude from the owner’s direct testi[493]*493mony that this robbery obstructed, delayed, or affected commerce in some manner or degree, albeit minimal. To the extent her cross-examination testimony may have suggested otherwise, any conflict was for the jury to resolve.
A jury may infer that interstate commerce was affected to some minimal degree from a showing that the business assets were depleted. As one court stated,
it was not necessary to show that any particular shipment of merchandise moving to and from [the business] was obstructed or delayed. It is a depletion of the resources of the business which permits the reasonable inference that its operations are obstructed or delayed.
Espereti v. United States, 406 F.2d 148, 160 (5th Cir.1969). Applying similar reasoning, in Boston, 718 F.2d 1511, we affirmed the Hobbs Act conviction of a County Commissioner in Oklahoma for extorting bribes from sellers of equipment and supplies to the county. The defendant appealed all seven counts of his conviction arguing the evidence was insufficient to establish interference with interstate commerce as required by the Act. We affirmed five of the seven counts because the suppliers sold goods that moved in interstate commerce and there was explicit testimony that the suppliers’ assets were depleted by the extortion. Id. at 1517. Despite the lack of explicit testimony as to depletion of assets for the sixth count, we held “the jury easily would have been justified in drawing this conclusion.” Id. Finally, we affirmed the last count because the county was involved in interstate commerce and “there was direct evidence that the county’s assets were depleted by the kickback.” Id. Thus, we held a mere depletion of assets sufficient to sustain the Hobbs Act violations without any showing that the suppliers or the county actually purchased fewer goods because of the extortion. See also Norris, 792 F.2d at 958 (extortion payment that depleted assets of business engaged in interstate commerce deemed sufficient to show effect on interstate commerce); United States v. O’Malley, 796 F.2d 891, 898 (7th Cir.1986) (jury instruction required jury to find interstate commerce was affected if victim of extortion was engaged in interstate commerce and if money extorted from victim could have been used for the purchase of out-of-state goods); Cerilli, 603 F.2d at 424 (depletion of assets of business engaged in interstate commerce sufficient to bring extortion within reaches of Act); United States v. Rabbitt, 583 F.2d 1014, 1023 (8th Cir.1978) (“threatened effect” on interstate commerce sufficient to invoke the Act; depletion of assets of auto dealers association sufficient to show required effect on commerce), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116, 99 S.Ct. 1022, 59 L.Ed.2d 75 (1979); United States v. Hathaway, 534 F.2d 386, 396-97 (1st Cir.) (depletion of assets of out-of-state firm with interstate connections sufficient to confer jurisdiction under Act), cert. denied, Baptista v. United States, 429 U.S. 819, 97 S.Ct. 64, 50 L.Ed.2d 79 (1976).
We therefore conclude that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the necessary de minimis connection between the robberies and interstate commerce on all counts.
III.
SENTENCING
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(c),6 the district court sentenced Mr. Zeigler to five years imprisonment on each of counts one through six, the sentences to be served corn-[494]*494secutively. The government did not object to the sentence imposed at the sentencing hearing. The government now contends, in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in United States v. Deal, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993), that the sentence imposed is illegal and that the district court should have sentenced Mr. Zeigler to twenty years for each subsequent conviction under section 924(c) as required by the statute. Mr. Zeigler argues that the government waived any objection to the sentence by not raising the issue below.
The district court sentenced Mr. Zeigler on May 22, 1992. At that time, we had determined that an enhanced sentence for a second or subsequent conviction under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1) was only proper when the underlying offense had been committed after a judgment of conviction on a prior section 924(c) offense. See United States v. Abreu, 962 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir.1992) (en banc). On May 17, 1993, however, the Supreme Court considered the same issue in Deal v. United States, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1993, 124 L.Ed.2d 44 (1993), and concluded to the contrary. The Court held that a second or subsequent conviction for purposes of section 924(c) can occur when two offenses are charged in the same indictment and the defendant is convicted of both offenses in the same trial.
The United States had petitioned for cer-tiorari in Abreu. The Supreme Court granted the petition after it decided Deal, vacated the judgment in Abreu, and remanded the case for further consideration. On remand, we affirmed Abreu’s enhanced sentence handed down by the district court. United States v. Abreu, 997 F.2d 825, 826 (10th Cir.1993).
We must now decide whether the sentence imposed in this case, which is below the statutory minimum, is subject to review where the government raises the issue for the first time on direct appeal. The government’s failure to object to the sentence imposed below may be excused because the law at the time of sentencing, as expressed in our en banc holding in Abreu, made clear that enhanced sentences were not permitted unless the underlying offense had been committed after a judgment of conviction in a prior section 924(c) offense. Abreu definitively foreclosed any government objection on this matter.7 Furthermore, “[bjecause the imposition of an illegal sentence would constitute plain error,” United States v. Vance, 868 F.2d 1167, 1169 (10th Cir.1989), this court may review the sentence imposed for plain error even though the government failed to raise the issue below. United States v. Voss, 956 F.2d 1007, 1009 (10th Cir.1992); see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b).
Given the Supreme Court’s interpretation of section 924(c) in Deal, the sentence imposed below, as it applies to the enhancement provision, is illegal and thus constitutes plain error. See Vance, 868 F.2d at 1169. Under the correct reading of section 924(c), Mr. Zeigler should be sentenced to twenty years for his second and subsequent convictions in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in Deal.
IV.
CONCLUSION
Having found the evidence sufficient to support the convictions on all six counts, we think it necessary to comment on the broad reach of the Hobbs Act. It is not clear from the record in this case whether Mr. Zeigler was prosecuted in state court or what sentence, if any, he received there for the six robberies which the United States prosecuted here. It is clear, however, that
the United States could in theory prosecute every would-be thief who had been prosecuted and sentenced for the conduct under state law, no matter how trivial the amount at issue. We question whether Congress ever intended the Hobbs Act to lead to this kind of “doubling” of sentences.
[495]*495Brown, 959 F.2d at 68. Despite any disagreement we may have with the federalization of traditionally local crimes and the resultant “doubling” of sentences in many cases, we nevertheless “recognize that any change must come from Congress rather than the courts.” Id.
We AFFIRM the convictions on all counts. We REVERSE the sentence imposed for counts one through six and REMAND the ease for resentencing in accordance with this decision.