Whether the federal government may prosecute a non-U.S. citizen located outside the United States for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a) based on conduct occurring entirely abroad, where the statute does not apply extraterritorially but the defendant's subsequent presence in the United States provides a domestic nexus to the offense

No question identified. : 1. The Fourth Circuit issued its opinion and entered judgment on June 8, 2023. Without an extension, the petition for a writ of certiorari would be due on September 6, 2023. With the requested extension, the petition would be due on October 6, 2023. The Court’s jurisdiction will be invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 13.5, petitioner is filing this application at least ten days before the current due date. 2. This case involves important questions regarding whether and to what extent the federal government may prosecute a non-U.S. citizen located outside the United States for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). In relevant part, § 2251(a) provides that [a]Jny person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any minor to engage in, ... with the intent that such minor engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct or for the purpose of transmitting a live visual depiction of such conduct, shall be punished as provided under subsection (e) . The penalty for violating § 2251(a) is a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison, with a statutory maximum of 30 years. 18 U.S.C. § 2251(e). In this case, Applicant, a New Zealand citizen located in that country met an American minor girl online and developed a relationship with her that included online sexual activity. Unbeknownst to the minor, Applicant recorded videos of her masturbating and stored the recordings and other screenshots of the minor on his computer and in email accounts. After the minor ended the relationship and cut off communications with Applicant, he travelled to the United States from New Zealand and was arrested in the Eastern District of Virginia, where the minor lived. While the Court of Appeals correctly determined that § 2251(a) does not apply extraterritorially, the court concluded that Applicant’s prosecution nonetheless involved a permissible domestic application of the statute. In so concluding the court relies heavily on its recent decision in United States v. Elbaz, 52 F.3d 593 (4th Cir. 2022), which addressed the extraterritorial and domestic application of the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1348. As in this case, the Elbaz count determined that § 1343 does not apply extraterritorially but that the defendant was prosecuted under a proper domestic application of the statute. The Elbaz defendant has petitioned this Court for review of her case. See Elbaz v. United States, No. 22-1055 (petition for certiorari filed Feb. 7, 2023; response of the United States due Aug. 30, 2023). 3. There is good cause for the requested 30-day extension of time. Counsel is the head of her office’s appellate section, which has been operating at only 2/3s strength since September 2022, just as her office experienced an increase in the number of direct appeals coming out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Between the Fourth Circuit’s issuance of its decision in Mr. Skinner’s case on June 8, 2023, and the filing of this application, counsel has filed opening briefs and appendices in five appeals and the appellant’s response in a sixth case to the government’s motion to dismiss his appeal.!_ Counsel was also out of the office on leave from June 23 until July 5. Looking ahead, counsel has due on September 1 the reply brief in a case scheduled for oral argument, and a petition for rehearing on September 7.2 Between September 12 and September 20, counsel will be participating in at least five moots for colleagues arguing before the Fourth Circuit in the September session? and has another opening brief and