through inspections, and that the United States does not have jurisdiction to enforce Oil Record Book violations occurring outside the navigable waters of the United States under MARPOL. Any violations of MARPOL, including a violation of Oil Book requirements, must be responded to by way of the referral system outlined above. The government contends first that the Defendant is not charged with a violation of APPS/MARPOL, but rather of domestic law, 18 U.S.C. § 1001. The protocol outlined in MARPOL/APPS addresses a framework for international maritime law, but the government states that this does not — and cannot— limit the United States’ jurisdiction for crimes committed in internal waters and ports. See, e.g., Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410, 416, 99 S.Ct. 1182, 59 L.Ed.2d 416 (1979) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524, 529, 77 S.Ct.
holding that it suffices that a prior conviction   was in fact for an offense  committed by the defendant against a spouse or other domestic victim holding that domestic jurisdiction is absolute for crimes committed within borders of a country holding that for purposes of claim 4 another country means a country other than the first and second country explicitly rejecting tpllcs proposed construction holding that the state department country report constituted substantial evidence to support the agencys finding of changed country conditions in guatemala holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation