F.Supp. 1138 (E.D.Va.1997). Rule 4(k)(2) was added in 1993 to deal with a gap in federal personal jurisdiction law in situations where a defendant does not reside in the United States, and lacks contacts with a single state sufficient to justify personal jurisdiction, but has enough contacts with the United States as a whole to satisfy the due process requirements. See ISI Int’l, 256 F.3d at 551; Swiss American Bank, 191 F.3d at 39-40. Precisely this situation is presented here. 1. Due Process analysis The first element of the Rule 4(k)(2) analysis requires the same minimum contacts due process analysis as is conducted under Rule 4(k)(l)(A), with the significant difference that the relevant forum is the United States as a whole, not an individual State. See Base Metal, 283 F.3d at 215 (<HOLDING>); ISI Int’l, 256 F.3d at 551 (“So far as the
holding that the commandant of the united states disciplinary barracks and the united states are identical parties holding a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the constitution and laws of the united states to state a claim under  1983 holding that the united states adoption of a states seizure of currency has the same effect as if the united states had originally seized the currency holding that the fourteenth amendment which makes persons bom in the united states and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the united states and requires that representatives be apportioned among the states based on population excluding indians not taxed did not make an indian a citizen of the united states holding that the plaintiff must demonstrate that defendants contacts with the united states as a whole support the exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the constitution and laws of the united states