forth in the statute, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). The defendants- argue that because “the statute does not make any specific reference to the possession of a firearm outside of the United States, ... there is no ‘clear, affirmative indication’ that Congress intended the statute to apply extraterritorially.” Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 8. “Section 924(c) crimes are not ordinary substantive offenses, however.” United States v. Abu Khatallah, 151 F.Supp.3d 116, 136 (D.D.C. 2015). “They depend on the commission of a concurrent—and predicate—crime of violence’” or drug trafficking crime. Id. see also 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). th Cir. 2010) (upholding extraterritorial.application of § 924(c) where torture was the predicate offense); United States v. Ahmed, 94 F.Supp.3d 394, 413 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Mardirossian, 818 F.Supp.2d
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 where the predicate crimes of violence relate to international terrorism and  congress clearly and explicitly gave those statutes extraterritorial effect holding that  924c applies extraterritorially where the underlying substantive criminal statutes apply extraterritorially 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 applies extraterritorially where the predicate acts include crimes on the high seas