See, e.g., United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076, 1087-1088 (2d Cir. 1984) (upholding a conviction under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846 where a vessel loaded with marijuana intended for distribution in the United States was intercepted in Colombian territorial waters). Likewise, 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 963, which prohibit importing and conspiring to import a controlled substance into the United States, contain no express extraterritoriality provision, but also apply to conduct outside the United States. See, e.g., United States v. Londono-Villa, 930 F.2d 994 999- 1000 (2d Cir. 1991) (recognizing Section 952’s extraterritorial reach and interpreting the provision to require that the defendant knew or intended that the narcotics would be imported into the United States); Chua Han Mow v. United States, 730 F.2d 1308, 1311-12 (9th Cir. 1984) (applying Title 21, United States Code, Sections 846 and 963 to conduct by a Malaysian citizen in Malaysia).

Unlawful importation is a criminal offense. See 21 U.S.C. §952. DEA is charged with enforcing these laws.

.......................................26 Orman v. Cullman, 794 A.2d 5 (Del. Ch. 2002) ................................................................................31 Rales v. Blasband, 634 A.2d 927 (Del. 1993)..............................................................................18, 19 Stone ex rel. AmSouth Bancorp. v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362 (Del. 2006) .........................................19, 20 Wood v. Baum, 953 A.2d 136 (Del. 2008) ...................................................................................21, 28 Zepeda v. PayPal, Inc., 777 F. Supp. 2d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2011).......................................................11 STATUTES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS 18 U.S.C. § 1955 .................................................................................................................................22 21 U.S.C. § 331 ...................................................................................................................................27 21 U.S.C. § 952 ...................................................................................................................................27 Del. Code Ann. tit. 8, § 102(b)(7).......................................................................................................20 Del. Gen. Corp. Law § 220.................................................................................................................17 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 ....................................................................................................................................1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b)..........................................................................................................................1, 35 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)...................................................................................................................1, 18 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.1 ......................................................................................................................

As we show below, his petition must be denied. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner was convicted in 1990 after a jury trial in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York of conspiracy to import, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 846 and 963, importation of more than one kilogram of Case 1:09-cv-00225-ARR-LB Document 10 Filed 04/13/09 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 42 2 heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 952(a), and distribution of and possession with intent to distribute more than one kilogram of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1). Specifically, Petitioner was convicted for his role in a scheme to import more than one kilogram of heroin from Nigeria into the United States.