United States v. Mohammad Shibin, 722 F.3d 233

Shibin was convicted on counts arising from two Somali pirate actions: the Marida Marguerite (2010) and the Quest (2011).
The Marida Marguerite was hijacked in international waters and held in Somali waters; Shibin served as the negotiator and aided in torture to extort a $5 million ransom.
The Quest was seized near Oman; the pirates killed four Americans after the Navy tried to intervene and identified Shibin as their negotiator.
FBI questioned Shibin in Somalia after his capture and later brought him to Virginia for trial.
Counts 1–6 pertain to the Marida Marguerite piracy; Counts 7–15 pertain to the Quest piracy; Shibin moved to dismiss piracy counts for lack of high seas act and jurisdiction, which the district court denied.
The district court admitted rebuttal testimony by FBI Agent Coughlin regarding statements of a witness through an interpreter, which Shibin challenged on hearsay and Confrontation Clause grounds; the district court admitted as prior inconsistent statements and the court of appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1651 piracy require acts on the high seas for aider-and-abettor liability?	Shibin—Aiding-and-abetting piracy requires high-seas conduct.	Shibin—No, § 2 allows aiding and abetting; facilitating acts need not occur on the high seas.	No locational limit for aiding and abetting; liability extends to facilitating acts, even if conducted ashore.
May Counts 2–6 (non-piracy offenses) be prosecuted under extraterritorial statutes?	Universal jurisdiction not required; statutes themselves provide extraterritorial reach.	Universal jurisdiction should not govern these counts; Congress clearly extended jurisdiction.	Counts 2–6 valid under extraterritorial congressional authority independent of universal jurisdiction.
Was personal jurisdiction proper where Shibin was forcibly transported to the U.S.?	Ker–Frisbie doctrine should not apply without extradition treaty protections.	Ker–Frisbie doctrine applies; no treaty bars transfer.	Ker–Frisbie applies; absence of treaty alone does not defeat jurisdiction; found-in/ brought-in sufficient.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in admitting Agent Coughlin’s testimony?	Interpreted statements are hearsay; interpreter not present.	Testimony was admissible as prior inconsistent statements; interpreter is conduit.	No abuse; statements admissible as prior inconsistent statements; Crawford not violated.

Dire v. United States, 680 F.3d 446 (4th Cir. 2012) (defines UNCLOS piracy definition and Article 101(c) aiding-and-abetting)
United States v. Hasan, 747 F. Supp. 2d 642 (E.D. Va. 2010) (discusses universal jurisdiction for piracy and terrorism-like offenses)
United States v. Shi, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2008) (extraterritorial reach of related maritime statutes)
United States v. Yousef, 327 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2003) (extraterritorial jurisdiction principles for offenses abroad)
United States v. Palmer, 3 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 610 (1818) (historical piracy scope and territorial reach (pre-modern))
United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th Cir. 2010) (§ 924(c) extraterritorial application alongside underlying offenses)