991 F.3d 552
4th Cir.2021Background
- Daniel Chase Harris, a U.S. Navy service member, used the internet to coerce a 13–14-year-old girl (H.K.) living in Virginia into sexually explicit acts while he was stationed in Japan, later contacting her from Guam and from locations in the U.S.
- Harris was convicted at trial on multiple counts, including coercion of a minor under 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b) (Count 14), and sentenced to 50 years; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Count 14 alleged Harris began contacting H.K. from a U.S. naval facility in Japan described as being within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” and continued contacts in the Eastern District of Virginia.
- Harris filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition arguing § 2422(b) was impermissibly applied extraterritorially because § 7(9) excludes active-duty service members on overseas military facilities.
- The district court concluded it need not resolve the statutory §7(3)/§7(9) question because Count 14 alleged domestic conduct: H.K. received the coercive messages in Virginia and Harris sent some messages while physically in the United States. The court denied relief; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §2422(b) may be applied to acts by active-duty service members at overseas U.S. military facilities (i.e., whether §7(9) excludes such prosecutions) | §7(9) and related amendments exclude active-duty personnel from the overseas jurisdictional reach, so §2422(b) cannot be applied to Harris’s overseas conduct | Govt: prosecution can rest on domestic aspects; district court avoided deciding complex §7(3)/§7(9) issue | Court avoided resolving whether §2422(b) is extraterritorial here and did not reach the §7(9) exclusion because Count 14 involved a permissible domestic application of §2422(b) |
| Whether Harris’s challenge is jurisdictional (personal jurisdiction) or a merits/extraterritoriality question, and what review applies | Claimed lack of personal jurisdiction over Count 14 because conduct began overseas | Govt contended merits question; but forfeited procedural-default defense in district court | Court: this is a merits extraterritoriality question (not personal jurisdiction); because Govt forfeited procedural-default defense, appellate review is de novo |
| Whether application of the presumption against extraterritoriality bars conviction given some offending conduct abroad (WesternGeco step two: location of statute’s focus) | Substantial conduct occurred abroad so conviction would be extraterritorial absent clear textual authorization | The conduct relevant to §2422(b)’s focus (coercion of a child) occurred in the U.S. (victim in Virginia) and some messages were sent from within the U.S. | Held that §2422(b)’s focus is protecting children; relevant conduct occurred in Virginia (domestic), so applying §2422(b) here is permissible and Count 14 stands |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Erdos, 474 F.2d 157 (4th Cir. 1973) (interpreting "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction" to reach U.S. facilities abroad)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (distinguishing jurisdictional questions from merits issues)
- Morrison v. Nat’l Austl. Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247 (2010) (presumption against extraterritoriality; merits analysis)
- WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 138 S. Ct. 2129 (2018) (two-step extraterritoriality framework; step two asks whether conduct relevant to statute’s focus occurred domestically)
- RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., 136 S. Ct. 2090 (2016) (courts generally address step one before step two, but may begin at step two in appropriate cases)
- United States v. Fugit, 703 F.3d 248 (4th Cir. 2012) (recognizing §2422(b)’s protective focus on preventing sexualization/solicitation of children)
- United States v. Engle, 676 F.3d 405 (4th Cir. 2012) (§2422(b) designed to protect children from solicitation)
- United States v. Sitzmann, 893 F.3d 811 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (upholding domestic application where defendant engaged in some conduct while physically in the U.S.)
- United States v. Gasperini, [citation="729 F. App'x 112"] (2d Cir. 2018) (applying focus test: where targeted computers were in U.S., CFAA application was domestic)