Whether the prosecution must show the facts required under 40 U.S.C. §3112(b) to establish territorial jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §7(3)

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Several federal criminal statutes only apply within the United States’s “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction,” including the assault statute at 18 U.S.C. §113(a). That limited jurisdiction includes land acquired by the United States from a state. See 18 U.S.C. §7(3). Section 3112(b) of Title 40 sets out requirements for a state to grant, and the federal government to accept, jurisdiction over such land, and §3112(c) says “[i]t is conclusively presumed that jurisdiction has not been accepted until the [federal] government accepts jurisdiction over land as provided in this section.” The question presented is whether the prosecution may establish territorial jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §7(3) merely by showing an offense occurred in a federal prison, as held in United States v. Read, 918 F.3d 712 (9" Cir. 2019), or must the prosecution show the facts required under 40 U.S.C. §3112(b), as held by the Second Circuit in United States v. Davis, 726 F.3d 357 (2° Cir. 2013), the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Love, 20 F.4th 407 (8" Cir. 2021), and every other circuit court to have addressed the issue? i