jurisdictional issues was limited to the context of statutory jurisdiction. We indicated that constitutional nexus jurisdiction is still an issue for the court’s determination. Perlaza, 439 F.3d at 1167 (“[S]hould a jury conclude on remand that the [vessel was foreign], the district court will ... have to determine whether the Government established a sufficient nexus between the [vessel] and the United States.” (e (1st Cir.1999) (stating that due process is not violated because it is not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair to exert authority with the flag nation's consent). The Third Circuit has rejected the proposition that nexus is required without expressly distinguishing between stateless and foreign vessels. See United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, 1056 (3d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Perez Oviedo, 281
holding that preplea notice of habitualization is clearly a legal matter involving no factual determination and thus no contemporaneous objection is required to preserve this issue holding that no nexus is required in part because salinas left the nature of any necessary connection unanswered holding that no nexus was required in a determination involving a stateless vessel holding that a nexus between the corporate officers or directors official activity and the matter for which indemnification is sought must be shown though no more than a nexus whether a nexus exists is a question of fact to be determined by the trial court considering all the circumstances surrounding the proposed indemnification holding that no federal nexus is required