D.C. Circuit has held that “the extraterritorial reach of an ancillary offense ... is coterminous with that of the underlying criminal statute.” United States v. Ali, 718 F.3d 929, 939 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (citing United States v. Yakou, 428 F.3d 241, 252 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). Thus, courts have universally held that where the predicate offense applies extra-territorially, so does § 924(c). See, e.g., Khatallah, 151 F.Supp.3d at 136; United States v. Shibin, 722 F.3d 233, 247 (4th Cir. 2013) (stating that because the defendant “could be prosecuted in the United States for hostage taking and maritime violence, he could also be prosecuted under § 924(c) for possessing, , using, or carrying a firearm in connéction' with those crimes”); United States v. Siddiqui, 699 F.3d 690, 701 (2d Cir. 2012) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783, 814
holding that  924c applies extraterritorially where the predicate acts include crimes on the high seas holding that  924c applies extraterritorially where the underlying substantive criminal statutes apply extraterritorially 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 crimes of violence relate to international terrorism and  congress clearly and explicitly gave those statutes extraterritorial effect 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 