whether or not they are found in the United States”); United States v. Noriega, 746 F.Supp. 1506, 1518-19 (S.D.Fla.1990) (upholding extraterritorial application due to the broad purpose and language of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, which punishes “travel in interstate or foreign commerce” with intent to promote unlawful activity). “Travel[ ] ... in foreign commerce” should logically be read to include traveling from the United States to a foreign country, and then purchasing a minor in that country for use in child pornography. 18 U.S.C. § 2251A(c)(l). For example, 18 U.S.C. § 2423(c), which punishes anyone “who travels in foreign commerce, and engages in any illicit sexual conduct,” has been applied extraterritorially. United States v. Clark, 435 F.3d 1100, 1106 (9th Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>); Martinez, 599 F.Supp.2d at 797-98 (same);
holding that the district court lacked authority to enforce a foreign judgment where the plaintiff filed only an affidavit describing the foreign judgment and not a certified copy of the judgment itself in the first instance holding state buy american statute unconstitutional because it interfered with federal foreign affairs power emphasizing its effect on foreign commerce holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute holding that  924c applies extraterritorially where the underlying substantive criminal statutes apply extraterritorially holding that the title of the statute engaging in illicit sexual conduct in foreign places and the requirement that the defendant travel in foreign commerce evinced congressional intent to apply the statute extraterritorially