investors who were scattered throughout the country.  He was interested in developing land in the Atlanta area and wanted Eaves to help him with any zoning problems.  "Hawkins" testified that Eaves acknowledged that he understood and was willing to cooperate.


12
In July of 1986, Eaves and "Hawkins" again met.  "Hawkins" stated that he wished to develop a certain piece of property ("Fox Road Property") at the highest density possible and suggested to Eaves that money was available for his vote.  They did not communicate from December of 1986 until late March of the following year.  On April 6, 1987, "Hawkins" filed a petition to rezone the Fox Road property from agricultural to R-5 use, the highest density classification.  The planning department of Fultonand Count IV charged Eaves with accepting $20,000 on September 4.  Eaves was tried and convicted on Counts I, III, and IV.


16
Eaves challenges his conviction on five distinct grounds.  He contends that the government failed to establish an impact on interstate commerce, an essential element of a Hobbs Act violation, and thus the district court should have dismissed the indictment.  Eaves also challenges the district court's additional charge on interstate commerce given to the jury on the third day of its deliberations.  Eaves asserts that he was the victim of wrongful and insidious selective prosecution and that limitations on his counsel's examination of witnesses prevented him from presenting a full and adequate defense.  Finally, Eaves argues, persuasively, that counts III and IV were