ORDER: (1) DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR CORRECT SENTENCE BY A PERSON IN FEDERAL CUSTODY PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255, DOC. NO. 46; AND (2) DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, Chief District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On May 31, 2016, Defendant/Petitioner Arien Sherman (ASherman@) pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B) pursuant to a plea agreement. ECF Nos. 17, 19. On September 15, 2016, the court sentenced Sherman to a term of 54 months imprisonment, ten years of supervised release, restitution of $10,000, a fine of $5,000, and a special assessment of $100. ECF No. 31. Judgment entered on September 22, 2016. ECF No. 32.

Currently before the court is Sherman's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence By a Person in Federal Custody ("§ 2255 Motion@).1 ECF No. 46. Although quite lengthy, at its core the § 2255 Motion claims that this court lacked jurisdiction over Sherman's case because the record lacks evidence "to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every location relevant to the Federal Criminal Case is in Federal Enclaves which comprise the Federal Judicial District." § 2255 Motion at 3. For the reasons discussed below, the § 2255 Motion is DENIED. Further, the court DENIES a certificate of appealabilility.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

The court's review of Sherman's § 2255 Motion is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a):

A court may dismiss a § 2255 motion if "it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief." R. 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings. A court need not hold an evidentiary hearing if the allegations are "palpably incredible [or] patently frivolous," Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 76 (1977) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), or if the issues can be conclusively decided on the basis of the evidence in the record. See United States v. Mejia-Mesa, 153 F.3d 925, 929 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that a "district court has discretion to deny an evidentiary hearing on a § 2255 claim where the files and records conclusively show that the movant is not entitled to relief"). Conclusory statements in a § 2255 motion are insufficient to require a hearing. United States v. Johnson, 988 F.2d 941, 945 (9th Cir. 1993). A petitioner must "allege specific facts which, if true, would entitle him to relief." United States v. Rodrigues, 347 F.3d 818, 824 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Because the court concludes that the § 2255 Motion can conclusively be decided on the basis of the existing record, the court will not hold an evidentiary hearing.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Sherman argues that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over his case "without evidence in the Record of the Court to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that every location relevant to the Federal Criminal Case is in Federal Enclaves which comprise the Federal Judicial District." § 2255 Motion at 3.2 He is simply mistaken.3

"The district courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses against the laws of the United States." 18 U.S.C. § 3231. The possession of child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(4)(B), which contains an interstate or foreign commerce element, is such an offense against the laws of the United States.

And the Ninth Circuit recently made clear that § 2252(a)(4)(B) is constitutional:

United States v. Sullivan, 797 F.3d 623, 631-32 (9th Cir. 2015).

And to the extent that Sherman argues that 40 U.S.C. § 31124 limits the court's jurisdiction in all criminal cases to those arising within the special maritime or territorial jurisdiction of the United States, he is again mistaken. See, e.g., Holmes v. United States, 2014 WL 6879061 at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2014); United States v. Youngs, 2015 WL 13307025, at *4 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 23, 2015); Thomas v. United States, 2013 WL 4855067, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 11, 2013); see also United States v. Sitton, 968 F.2d 947, 953 (9th Cir. 1992). As stated by the Seventh Circuit in response to the same jurisdictional challenge to the federal bank robbery statute, the "challenge to the federal territorial jurisdiction of the district court is frivolous and requires no further discussion." United States v. Banks-Giombetti, 245 F.3d 949, 953 (7th Cir. 2001).

The § 2255 Motion is DENIED.

B. Certificate of Appealability

In dismissing the § 2255 Motion, the court must also address whether Sherman should be granted a certificate of appealability ("COA"). See R. 11 Governing Section 2255 Proceedings (providing that "[t]he district court must issue or deny a certificate of appealability when it enters a final order adverse to the applicant"). A COA may issue only if the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). "The standard for a certificate of appealability is lenient." Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 553 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc), overruled on other grounds by Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011). The petitioner is required to demonstrate only "that reasonable jurists could debate the district court's resolution or that the issues are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The standard "requires something more than the absence of frivolity but something less than a merits determination." Id. (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Based on the above analysis, the court finds that reasonable jurists could not find the court's rulings debatable.

Accordingly, a COA is DENIED.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES Sherman's § 2255 Motion and DENIES a certificate of appealability. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case files.

IT IS SO ORDERED.