elucidated above, we find that jurisdiction under § 1001 is appropriate. We also note that as an alternate basis for jurisdiction under § 1001, the extraterritoriality doctrine providing jurisdiction over certain extraterritorial offenses whose “extraterritorial acts are intended to have an effect within the sovereign territory” seems applicable to this case. U.S. v. Padilla-Martinez, 762 F.2d 942, 950 (11th Cir.1985). See also U.S. v. Stuart-Caballero, 686 F.2d 890, 891 (11th Cir.1982) (per curiam) (rejecting argument that international law and due process precludes the extension of United States criminal narcotics laws to vessels on the high seas absent proof of intent to distribute the narcotics in the United States); U.S. v. Williams, 617 F.2d 1063, 1076 (5th Cir.1980) (era banc) (<HOLDING>) Certainly, deliberate use of false documents
holding that colorado by its admission into the united states acquired criminal jurisdiction over its own citizens and other white persons through the whole territory within its limits including any indian reservations 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 united states jurisdiction embraces offenses having an effect within its sovereign territory even though the acts constituting the offense occur outside the territory holding that sovereign immunity bars an attorneys lien against the united states holding that  1203b1 offers the bases of jurisdiction where the offense occurred outside the united states 