Id. at *10. It cited as authority not only Nelson and Wright, but also United States v. Cornier–Ortiz, 361 F.3d 29 (1st Cir.2004) ; United States v. Kenner, 354 F.2d 780 (2d Cir.1965) and United States v. Kott, 625 F.Supp.2d 854 (D.Alaska 2007). Id. at *8–10.

Id. Thus, "the ruling in Evans clearly contemplates that a state official can conspire with a payor to extort property from the payor when the official knows that the payment is made in return for official acts." United States v. Kott, 625 F. Supp. 2d 854, 857 (D. Alaska 2007). It appears that the Fourth Circuit will soon have the opportunity to revisit the issues raised here in the pending case United States v. Medford, No. 08-5030, where appellants argue that the Fourth Circuit should vacate a Hobbs Act conspiracy conviction because the statute does not authorize prosecution for extorting from a fellow conspirator.