USA v. Roy M. Belfast, Jr. - Court of Appeals - 11th Circuit

Torture Act as well.
Emmanuel’s conviction for conspiracy to commit torture is constitutional,
and his acts fell within the proscriptions of the Torture Act.
V.
Emmanuel’s next challenge is to his conviction for using and carrying a
firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
924(c) (Count Eight), a statute which he claims cannot be applied to his
extraterritorial conduct. In resolving this issue we address two questions: first,
whether the statute can ever apply extraterritorially; and second, whether the
district court plainly erred in applying 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) to Emmanuel. We
answer the first question in the affirmative, and the second question in the
negative. The challenged conviction must stand.
As with Congress’s ability to regulate the conduct of United States citizens
abroad, it is well established that Congress can regulate conduct outside of the
territorial bounds of the United States (not just that of its own citizens), EEOC v.
Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248 (1991), superseded on other grounds by
statute, Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, 105 Stat. 1074, but, again,
we assume that Congress does not intend for a statute to apply extraterritorially
unless it evinces that intent clearly, Sale, 509 U.S. at 173; see also United States v.
50