Whether the district court's jurisdiction over the case was legally defeated by the defendant's stipulation regarding the location of the offense, and whether the appellate court's disposition was a 'drive-by jurisdictional ruling'

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Robert James Turner filed a fost -jodgmen+ Motion to desmiss WNaictment In the U.S. Disteret Couth for the Eaghen District of Veeginia Under Fed. R. Crim. @. ie b)(a), Contending thot Yee district cart lacked pre \Sdiction over Wis Case. The district Court oltimately adopted he government's Acqument Ww Ofpos irom fo Turners moon by stating that Vernier "Stipulated do orig dTctions over Lochs Reformatory Correctional Corn plex ("Loe tons Facility") wilnere Phe offense | allegedly tookk place, and woted that i was an “onaseall~ tlle fact that the Lorton Facility was Within tre Speetal Maritime and TerrWorial joucisdtctias of We ONiked States. Case No 1:46-cr00374-Lmg, Doce. 43 at 1. Tornec timely Appeaied. Ow avract Appen, She Faorth, Ciccott charactertzed Turnet’s Motion do dismiss as “Successive 96 U.S.C. HSS Motion, detecmined that “Phe drstetch Cort lacked ‘prisdvetiow to hear’ the presumed Second oc Successive motion, denied a Certificate of appealability, and Aismissed re appect. USCAY Case Wo. oo 1314 | Jan. 30, 2093. The: Forth Ciccott wever Conisider2d any oF Turner's acgumenPS evens Yrogh tre interest of justice so Cequired we. See 1 U.S.C. 39315 See also 2¢ V-S.C. (94), TY also bears emphasis Sat Turner onequivecally identified Wis motion & dismiss 4s A motion under Fed. &. Crim. P. Id, and asserted that 9¢ U-S-C9455 Ch)'s gate Keeping Gutroity" dtd woh apply 2 his case. See Turner's Motion Jo dismiss ck \y dared Aug. 341 9090. The Appellate grounds acgoed were KS Follang 2 (1) twat “the disteect Courts Conclusion 46 te tne question of furisdiction was a drive-by {urisdictional roling’; (a)4hat Turner's: “stipulation dees nob core a judgment trot is vod Fran iks (NceoKors j (3) drat Nether the “lani-b-thecase” doctrine . “pever~ (recedes cule," oc 88 V.9.C. 9495S Ch) gover ned his Case And CA) that the government engaged Ww “Federalism in Valatins & the Tent, Amendment becarse his conduct “did iat Fall within the Scope We Asstnilative Colmes flckee.” Agpea\ No. 98-7314, Torner’s Tnforma| Bece® ak AWD, (nett Page) Page 2 [Robect J. Tormer v. United States Question (s) fresensted (Coutt'd) Since tne ampellate Cecocd 5 Silent 45 to every iSéue (arsed by Me. Tocwec, aud lath Pre GoNece mens prd__disfefct Carr uelied almost exclusively on Tornec!s jurisdictimual "SH plat ions! Jovolving tne Lotto Facility, Can \this FF pU lation Vegally] defeat finsy challenge do dye district court's \ucisdicpiom gvec " ° ¢ ~ “ |Mocreovec, Was the Ais poston a_'de ve= by jyycisd ics insa| Collang oy Hoe Eau, Circrit Conk af Afpeats Mor its failute te cons 1 | ——— | i i | Page. 3