most of their passage) fly within international airspace before returning to domestic territory, the occupants have always been subject to being charged under this hitherto overlooked definition of “importation.” The government’s novelty seems all the more striking in this Circuit, where notwithstanding the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of such daily flights, the government has somehow throughout these many years never pressed such a theory of importation. Is this attributable to prosecutorial benevolence or incompetence? Certainly not. What we have is the tacit recognition that such acts could not reasonably be considered “importation” within § 952(a). “Whatever other statutes defendants may have violated, they did not violate this one.” Maravilla, 907 F.2d at 223 (Breyer, C.J.) (<HOLDING>). We have a similar situation with waterborne
holding that united states attorney was not required to abide by a secret service agents promise to a defendant to drop federal charges in exchange for defendants cooperation where the united states attorney never sanctioned the agreement and the promise was clearly outside the agents authority holding that appellant was not harmed where defendant never asserted that he was not a us citizen and no evidence in the record suggested he was not a us citizen holding that custom agents who murdered a dominican citizen who was temporarily in the united states did not violate civil rights statute because the victim was not an inhabitant holding that prosecution of defendant in the united states for hostage taking based on acts committed outside the united states did not violate due process holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states