May the offense of conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances while on a United States aircraft, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 959(c), be prosecuted extraterritorially, resolving a direct circuit split?

1. May the offense of conspiracy to distribute or possess with intent to distribute controlled substances while on a United States aircraf t, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 959(c), be pr osecuted extraterritorially, re solving a direct circuit split between United States v. Epskamp , 832 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2016) and United States v. Thompson , 921 F.3d 263 (D.C. Cir. 2019)? 2. Did the government’s handling of Landji’s attorney-client privileged documents violate his rights under the Sixth Amendment as delineated by Kastigar v. United States , 406 U.S. 441 (1972) and its progeny? 3. Were Landji’s Confrontation Clause rights under Crawford v. Washington , 541 U.S. 36 (2004) and its progeny, violated when a cell phone data extraction report was admitted via the test imony of an analyst other than the one who conducted the extraction? ii