added)). 3 . The district court "preliminarily” found statutory jurisdiction to be proper. Because it believed statutory jurisdiction to be an element of an offense under United States v. Smith, 282 F.3d 758 (9th Cir.2002), the court then submitted the question of consent to the jury. The district court need not have taken this second step since consent was uncontested. 4 . We do not require nexus for stateless vessels. See Perlaza, 439 F.3d at 1161; United States v. Moreno-Morillo, 334 F.3d 819, 829 (9th Cir.2003). 5 . The First and Fifth Circuits have rejected the position that nexus is required for foreign vessels when the flag nation has consented to the application of United States law to the defendants. See United States v. Bustos-Useche, 273 F.3d 622, 627-28 (5th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cardales, 168 F.3d 548,
holding that by the introduction and admission of the delawares as part of the cherokee nation they became a part of the people of such nation and bound in common with the cherokees by the political power of the nation holding that regulatory requirements are not jurisdictional in nature holding gwaltney limited to jurisdictional question and does not prohibit recovery of past penalties in citizen suit if jurisdictional requirements met holding that as a matter of law the embassy of a sovereign nation is a foreign state holding that jurisdictional requirements were met because the flag nation consented to the enforcement of the mdlea over the foreign vessel