United States v. Mardirossian, 818 F. Supp. 2d 775

Mardirossian moved to dismiss charges on due process grounds and challenged § 924(c) extraterritorial application.
Court denied dismissal of indictment but reserved ruling on extraterritorial reach of § 924(c).
Indictment alleges February 2010 meeting with a DEA confidential source proposing cocaine-for-weapons exchange with FARC ties.
Items include Panama meetings, weapon samples (grenade launcher, AK-47), and travel to inspect cocaine shipments bound for New York.
March 2011 wire transfer to New York and April 2011 arrangements for weapon delivery to undercover in Copenhagen are charged as related conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 924(c) apply extraterritorially as an ancillary statute?	Government contends ancillary statute applies abroad.	Mardirossian argues no extraterritorial application for § 924(c).	Yes; § 924(c) applies extraterritorially as an ancillary statute.
Is Bowman’s exception controlling for § 924(c) extraterritoriality here?	Government views Bowman as potentially supportive.	Mardirossian questions independent applicability of Bowman.	Bowman doubtful as sole basis; court proceeds based on Yousef-style ancillary approach.
Does the underlying crime qualify as extrapolating extraterritorially for § 924(c)?	Government maintains predicate crime abroad authorizes § 924(c).	Mardirossian disputes relying on foreign predicate crime.	Yes; § 924(c) applies where underlying extraterritorial crime is prosecutable.

United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (ancillary statutes apply extraterritorially with underlying crime)
Bowman v. United States, 260 U.S. 94 (1922) (presumption of domestic application; potential exception for obstruction or fraud offenses)
United States v. Gatlin, 216 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2000) (recognizes contextual basis for extraterritorial conduct when related to offense)
Small v. United States, 544 U.S. 385 (U.S. 2005) (legal presumption of domestic application with two exceptions)