## Facts

- Milton Gatlin, a civilian, was accused of sexually abusing a minor on a U.S. Army installation in Germany.
- The government prosecuted Gatlin in the Eastern District of New York under 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a), which criminalizes sexual abuse of a minor within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
- The asserted jurisdictional basis was 18 U.S.C. § 7(3), defining that jurisdiction to include certain lands “reserved or acquired for the use of the United States, and under the exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction thereof.”
- Gatlin pleaded guilty but reserved the right to challenge subject-matter jurisdiction on appeal.
- The district court rejected the jurisdictional challenge and entered judgment of conviction.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 7(3)’s “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States” includes U.S. military installations located in foreign countries.
2. If § 7(3) does not cover a foreign military base, whether the federal courts lacked jurisdiction to accept Gatlin’s plea and convict him under 18 U.S.C. § 2243(a).

## Decision

- The Second Circuit reversed the judgment of conviction and dismissed the indictment.
- The court held that § 7(3) does not extend to U.S. military enclaves located within foreign sovereign territory.
- Because the alleged conduct occurred on a base in Germany, the jurisdictional element required by § 2243(a) was not satisfied, depriving the district court of statutory authority to proceed.

## Legal Principles

- Federal criminal statutes are presumed not to apply extraterritorially absent a clear congressional statement to that effect.
- 18 U.S.C. § 7(3) is aimed at federal enclaves within U.S. borders (e.g., lands under exclusive or concurrent federal jurisdiction in the United States) and does not, without clear direction from Congress, reach overseas military installations.
- Treaties or status-of-forces agreements may allocate jurisdictional priorities between nations but do not themselves supply domestic statutory authorization for federal criminal jurisdiction in Article III courts.
- Courts may not expand statutory jurisdiction to close perceived enforcement gaps when Congress has not enacted the necessary jurisdictional grant.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit concluded that § 7(3) does not place overseas U.S. military installations within the “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,” so a civilian’s offense on a base in Germany could not be prosecuted under § 2243(a); the conviction was reversed and the indictment dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


United States v. Gatlin, 216 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2000)