## Facts

- Jose Emanuel Garcia Sota (often styled in secondary sources as “Sota”) and an accomplice participated in an attack on U.S. law enforcement officers in Mexico.
- The victims were ICE Special Agent Jaime Zapata and ICE Special Agent Victor Avila, who were traveling on a Mexican highway.
- During the attack, Agent Zapata was killed and Agent Avila was wounded.
- Mexican authorities apprehended the defendants, and they were extradited to the United States.
- The defendants were tried in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- A jury convicted them on four counts: two counts under 18 U.S.C. § 1114 (killing/attempting to kill an officer or employee of the United States), one count under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence), and one count under 18 U.S.C. § 1116 (killing an internationally protected person, a statute that expressly applies outside the United States).
- On appeal, the defendants argued that § 1114 and § 924(c) could not be applied to conduct in Mexico; they did not challenge the § 1116 convictions on extraterritoriality grounds.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 1114 applies extraterritorially to the killing and attempted killing of U.S. officers in Mexico.
2. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) can apply to conduct abroad when the predicate offense is a crime that itself applies extraterritorially (including 18 U.S.C. § 1116).
3. Whether vacating the § 1114 counts requires disturbing the firearm count and any death-related finding associated with that count.
4. Whether limits on cross-examination or other evidentiary rulings warranted reversal of the remaining convictions.

## Decision

- The court vacated the § 1114 convictions, holding that § 1114 contains no clear indication that Congress intended it to apply outside the United States.
- The court affirmed the § 924(c) conviction, holding that § 924(c) may reach overseas conduct when it is linked to a predicate offense for which the defendant “may be prosecuted in a court of the United States,” including predicates with express extraterritorial reach such as § 1116.
- The court left the § 1116 convictions intact (not challenged on extraterritoriality grounds).
- The court rejected the defendants’ remaining trial-related claims, concluding that the challenged restrictions and rulings did not justify overturning the valid counts.
- The court remanded for limited resentencing in light of the vacatur of the § 1114 convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Federal statutes are presumed to apply only within the United States unless Congress clearly indicates otherwise.
- Statutory silence on geographic reach generally is not enough to overcome the presumption against extraterritorial application.
- When Congress expressly provides extraterritorial reach in one statute but not in a closely related neighboring statute, that contrast supports reading the silent statute as domestic-only.
- 18 U.S.C. § 1114 has domestic scope and does not apply to killings or attempted killings occurring in a foreign country.
- 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) may apply to conduct occurring abroad when the underlying predicate offense itself applies abroad; in that setting, § 924(c)’s reach tracks the predicate offense.
- Vacatur of counts that lack extraterritorial reach does not automatically invalidate a § 924(c) conviction if another valid predicate supports it.

## Conclusion

United States v. Sota held that § 1114 does not extend to an attack on ICE agents in Mexico because Congress did not clearly authorize extraterritorial application, but the court sustained the § 924(c) firearm conviction because it can apply overseas when tied to an extraterritorial predicate such as § 1116, and the court remanded only for limited resentencing after vacating the § 1114 counts.


United States v. Sota, 948 F.3d 356 (2020)