omitted). “Unless contrary intent appears,” however, “all statutes, without exception, [should] be construed to apply within the United States .only.” United States v. Delgado-Garcia, 374 F.3d 1337, 1344 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Cmty., — U.S.-, 136 S.Ct. 2090, 2100, 195 L.Ed.2d 476 (2016) (“Absent clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, federal laws will be construed to have only domestic application.”); Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 569 U.S. 108, 133 S.Ct. 1659, 1664, 185 L.Ed.2d 671 (2013) (explaining that the presumption against extraterritorial application provides that ‘“[w]hen a statute has no clear indication of an extraterritorial application, it has none’ ” (quotin 01 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Emmanuel, Crim. No.
holding that  924c applies extraterritorially where the predicate acts include crimes on the high seas holding that  924c applies extraterritorially where the underlying substantive criminal statutes apply extraterritorially holding that  924c applies extraterritorially because the predicate crime of violence  violation of the torture act is one that may be prosecuted in a court of the united states  holding that  924c applies extraterritorially in a bombing plot where the charges were predicated on 18 usc  844i which the court held to apply extraterritorially holding that  924c applied to bombings of united states embassies in east africa because the predicate charges under 18 usc  844f1 3 apply extraterritorially