Fed. R. Cbim. P. 12(b)(1). Such motion may challenge “a defect in the indictment or information” if “the basis for the motion is then reasonably available and the motion can be determined without a trial on the merits.” Fed. R. Cbim. P. 12(b)(3)(B). Although a court’s supervisory powers provide it with the authority to dismiss an indictment, “dismissal is granted only in unusual circumstances.” United States v. Ballestas, 795 F.3d 138, 148 (D.C. Cir. 2015). 2. Extraterritorial Application • of § m(c) It is well-established that “Congress has the authority to enforce its laws beyond the territorial boundaries of the United States.’” EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991) (internal quotation 2007 WL 2002452, at *13 (S.D. Fla. July. 5, 2007) (<HOLDING>). The defendants argue that the Supreme Court
holding that  924c applies extraterritorially where the underlying substantive criminal statutes apply extraterritorially 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 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 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