quoted swpra note 4, makes it a federal offense for any person to take a hostage “in order to compel a third person or a governmental organization to do or abstain from doing any act.” The statute does not apply to offenses committed within the United States unless one of three conditions has been met: (i) either the victim or the perpetrator was a foreign national; (ii) the perpetrator is found outside the United States; or (iii) the perpetrator sought, through commission of the kidnaping, to compel the United States to do or abstain from doing some act. Id. § 1203(b)(2). Here, Muñoz was a foreign national, so section 1203(b)(2) is satisfied and the statute therefore applies. There is no requirement that the perpetrator know the victim’s nationality or intend to commit an Cir.1975) (<HOLDING>). We see no reason why the same rationale
holding that the defendant did not need to know he was crossing state lines in order to violate 18 usc  1201 which applies to the transportation of kidnaped persons across state lines holding that the fourteenth amendment only applies to state action recognizing that a state has a legitimate interest in all insurance policies protecting its residents against risks an interest which the state can protect even though the state action may have repercussions beyond state lines holding officer had a reasonable basis to stop a motorist for crossing the fog line and that failure to have regard for the width and use of the street by swerving off the side of the road or crossing the marker lines constitutes probable cause for a traffic stop holding that specific jurisdiction may not be avoided merely because the defendant did not physically enter the forum state since it is an inescapable fact of  modern commercial life that a substantial amount of business is transacted solely by mail and wire communications across state lines thus obviating the need for physical presence within a state in which business is conducted