WPC} ٭k2մ @83#|ɴ"q_zg{LrnOr ?.2[oj Gb m^,z|gKA/4h@D3*Zz:‚[]QLoxŴ$S ||MBG1H9ޖzlTWfʙau&d(!R ͹ƍ1-'v8>d)0̣ UH仆%N0}Jz!rMMt* SE{tpB)ӝQGٔl-iu|_+QM 7RÃ|^"iî;8.a5!*+<OS!1J9;{EIE 0 0D 72L~N 72 72 00 0U 0q BZ 0w 0] 0@ 0  0 0 0 0C 0 0 0p! 0YA" 0" 0h# 03$ 0$ 0% 0@& 0& 0' 0e( 03) 0) 0* 0+ 0M, 0< - 0F- 0>. 0vB. 0`. 0`/ 0`x/ 0`/ 0`80 080 00 021 01 0:2 0_ 3 0 i3 0js4 05 B*a7 D/7 D+7 07 D/i9 09 06f: 0: 0:; 0N; 0^,< 0<<^<U6$=U >Z=U*=U8=UB===N<> 1e>>>>>> 72>b>>>>>> 72>>>>>>>^?bm?m?m?m?m?u????}AZCAG9O;SbTT=UP]_bod8 SgqarsJt w/wHP LaserJet 5/5M - Standard,,,,0<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularX($USUS.,Ԡ50s P/0?,}backup 3|x$U(#$  0  (v:2 $ !USUS.,  =AXdd=      0  <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(9 Z(Times New Roman TABLE AhsCEIMQUY]aAutoList1""""""""i)1)a)"(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(b$0  0` (#(#2#   .3  0 ` (#` (#(xir$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#2#(  0  )3  0 (# (#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#2#(  a  )3  0h(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#2#(   )3  0h(#h(#($0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#2#  0  )3  0(#(#({$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#2#  a  )3  0p(#(#(F$0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#0 (# (#0h(#(#0h(#h(#0(#(#0p(#(#2#     )3  0p(#p(# i) A.i)0.Normal*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   d*D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  64Hyperlink    *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  <:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKa<6X9`(Courier NewKSb\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis<:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard Ka<6X9`(Courier NewKSb\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/Ka<6X9`(Courier NewKSb\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7U(X7  ?c%2A`Arial?  Sb\  `&Times New RomanS7V(X7&  d dT)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7X(X7  ?c%2A`Arial?  Sb\  `&Times New RomanS7V(X7T)2dxd0KS.SampleKa<6X9`(Courier NewKSb\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKa<6X9`(Courier NewKSb\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable(O$: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial<4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi/0124567 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.A.- -i)L:\JUDGES\Boudin\TEMPLATE\OPINIONS\ALDRICH.WPT- -      $USUS.,=eXdd=      1    _=eXXdXd=OnDecember23,2002,subsequenttofilinghisnoticeof  appeal,Rahemanfiledamotiontosetasidehisconvictionpursuant  to28U.S.C.2255.Thatmotionispendinginthedistrictcourt.    $USUS.,=eXdd=      2    _=eXXdXd=Rahemanhasalsoraisedseveralprosearguments,eachof  whichwehaveconsidered.Becausetheseargumentsarewithout  merit,wesummarilyrejectthem.     $USUS.,=eXdd=      3    _=eXXdXd=Mass.Gen.L.ch.265,26Aprovidesasfollows:8 @H SS S S  S    8  Whoever,beingarelativeofachildlessthaneighteen ,| yearsold,withoutlawfulauthority,holdsorintendsto R holdsuchachildpermanentlyorforaprotractedperiod, . ortakesorenticesachildfromhislawful  custodian...shallbepunishedbyimprisonment....    (emphasisadded).bX XXX 6  #XeX XbXe#dXeXXXe    $USUS.,=eXdd=      4    _=eXXdXd=Regardingtheparentalkidnappingcharge,thedistrictcourt  instructedthejury,inpertinentpart,asfollows:  8  Now,whatarethese"parentalrights"thatwe'vebeen 2 talkingabout?I'mabouttoinstructyouonthat.X   8  Theterm"parentalrights,"withrespecttoachild,   meanstherighttophysicalcustodyofthechild,whether   jointorsole,andincludesvisitationrights.`    8  Therighttophysicalcustodyorvisitationcanarisein  \  threeways:byoperationoflaw,bycourtorder,orbya  2  legallybindingagreement.Therighttophysicalcustody   istherighttoactualpossessionandcontrolofachild.    8  InMassachusetts,bothparentshavejointcustodyofa :  minorchildpriortotheinterventionofacourt.'The `  lawofMassachusettsrecognizesbothparents'equal 6 rightstocustodyoftheirchildren....Priortoa   courtorder,bothparentshavelawfulcustodyoftheir  children.'Bothparents'righttophysicalcustody h continuesunlessanduntilitisterminatedbyspecific > legalproceedings.Becausetherewasnocourtorderfrom d anycourtandnolegallybindingagreementbetweenthe : parties,onNovember26,1997,bothDr.RahemanandMs.  Alihadtherighttophysicalcustodyoftheirchildren.   (emphasisadded).    $USUS.,=eXdd=      5    _=eXXdXd=Evenifthiswereastructuralerror,Rahemanwouldstillnot  beentitledto"automaticreversal"becausehefailedtopreserve  hisobjection.InJohnsonv.UnitedStates,520U.S.461,466 \ (1997),theSupremeCourtassumedthatanerrorwas"structural" 2 butneverthelessheldthat,becausethedefendanthadfailedto X preservehisobjection,"plainerror"appellatereviewapplied. . SeealsoUnitedStatesv.Randazzo,80F.3d623,63132(1stCir.   1996)(predictingSupremeCourtrulingthatunpreservedstructural   errorswouldbesubjecttoplainerrorreview).    $USUS.,=eXdd=      6    _=eXXdXd=Afterprovidingthedefinitionofparentalrights,thecourt  instructedthatAlihadparentalrightsoverthechildrenasa  matteroflaw.- -   3   $USUS.,=eXdd=      7    _=eXXdXd=Followingthistestimony,AliwasaskedwhetherRahemanhad  madeanycommentsaboutrestrainingorders.Rahemanobjected,the  districtcourtoverruledhisobjection,andAliresponded: \ 8  Hesaidtomethat,ifyouthoughtthatyoucouldgoto X thepoliceandgetarestrainingorderagainstme,that's . notgoingtohelpyoubecausearestrainingordercomes   intoeffectonlywhenit'sviolatedandthenitcouldbe   toolate.`      Rahemanthereafterobjectedandmovedforamistrial.Ata  \  sidebarconference,thejudgeexpressedsomeconcernaboutthe  2  graphicnatureofboththerestrainingorderevidenceandthe   threatevidencealreadyadmitted,statingatonepointthatshe   mighthaveexcludedtheevidenceunderRule403hadsheknownits d  natureinadvance.ThecourtthereafterdeniedRaheman'smistrial :  motionbutstrucktherestrainingordertestimony,instructingthe `  jurythatsuchevidencehad"nothingtodowiththisparticular 6 proceeding."Thecourtdidnot,however,strikethethreat   evidencethathadearlierbeenadmitted.    Thus,ourtaskistodecidewhethertheadmissionofthe > remainingthreatevidencewaswithinthecourt'sdiscretion.For d thereasonssetforthinthetext,weconcludethatitwas.We : alsorejectRaheman'scontentionthatthedistrictcourterredin  denyinghismotionforamistrial.dXeXXX    $USUS.,=eXdd=      8    _=eXXdXd=Forsupport,Rahemannotesthat"[t]hetrialoccurredin  BostonlessthanoneyearaftertheterrorattacksofSeptember11,  2001."    $USUS.,=eXdd=      9    _=eXXdXd=Rahemanarguesagainthatthiserrorwas"structural"and  thereforeweshouldnotapplyplainerrorreview.Asweexplained  above,plainerrorapplieseveniftheallegederrorisproperly \ classifiedasstructural.Seesupraat16n.5;seealsoUnited 2 Statesv._Prez_ԄRuiz,353F.3d1(1stCir.2003)(holdingthat X _Aprrendi_errorisnotstructural).Inanyevent,asexplained . below,therewasnoerroratall.    $USUS.,=eXdd=      10    _=eXXdXd=Thisstatutewasrecentlyamended,butRaheman'strial  occurredbeforetheamendmentstookeffect.Wereferthroughoutto  thepreamendmentversionofthestatute.    $USUS.,=eXdd=      11    _=eXXdXd=18U.S.C.2511(1)(a)states,inpertinentpart:  8  Exceptasotherwisespecificallyprovidedinthischapter \ anypersonwhointentionallyintercepts,endeavorsto 2 intercept,orprocuresanyotherpersontointerceptor X endeavortointercept,anywire,oral,orelectronic . communication...shallbepunishedasprovidedin   subsection(4). .   $USUS.,=eXdd=      12    _=eXXdXd=18U.S.C.2511(4)provides,inpertinentpart:  0  0` (#(# ` (#` (# 8  (a)[W]hoeverviolatessubsection(1)ofthissection \ shallbefinedunderthistitleorimprisonednotmore 2 thanfiveyears,orboth.X   0  0` (#(# ` (#` (# 8  (b)Iftheoffenseisafirstoffenseunderparagraph(a)   ofthissubsectionandisnotforatortiousorillegal   purposeorforpurposesofdirectorindirectcommercial `  advantageorprivatecommercialgain,andthewireor 6   electroniccommunicationwithrespecttowhichthe  \  offenseunderparagraph(a)isaradiocommunicationthat  2  isnotscrambled,encrypted,ortransmittedusing   modulationtechniquestheessentialparametersofwhich   havebeenwithheldfromthepublicwiththeintentionof d  preservingtheprivacyofsuchcommunication,then:       `  8  0`   (i)ifthecommunicationisnottheradioportion 6 ofacellulartelephonecommunication,acordless   telephonecommunicationthatistransmittedbetween  thecordlesstelephonehandsetandthebaseunit,a h publiclandmobileradioservicecommunicationora > pagingservicecommunication,andtheconductis d notthatdescribedinsubsection(5),theoffender : shallbefinedunderthistitleorimprisonednot  morethanoneyear,orboth;and` `  8  0`   (ii)ifthecommunicationistheradioportionofa B cellulartelephonecommunication,acordless h telephonecommunicationthatistransmittedbetween > thecordlesstelephonehandsetandthebaseunit,a  publiclandmobileradioservicecommunicationora  pagingservicecommunication,theoffendershallbe p  finedunderthistitle.    $USUS.,=eXdd=      13    _=eXXdXd=Thedistrictcourtwaspresentedwithinformationthat,under  Islamiclaw,amotherhasarightofphysicalcustodyonlyuntil  daughtersreachpubertyandsonsreachtheageofseven. W   $USUS.,=eXdd=      14    =eXXdXd=_HadCongressintendedittobeone,iteasilycouldhaveso  provided. @   $USUS.,=eXdd=      15    _=eXXdXd="TheDefendantshallforthwithtakeallreasonablemeasures  withinhiscontroltoreturnthechildrentotheUnitedStatesso  thattheMiddlesexProbateCourt(orotherappropriatecourt)may \ determinechildcustodyissues...."(emphasisadded). SDU_10    $USUS.,=eXdd=      16    _=eXXdXd=Indeed,Rahemanhasalreadyfileda2255motioninthe  districtcourt,alleging,interalia,thattrialcounselwas  ineffective.InanorderdatedJanuary22,2003,thedistrict \ courtagreedtohearRaheman'scollateralclaimssimultaneously 2 withthiscourt'sconsiderationofthedirectappeal.(The X districtcourtexplaineditsrulingasfollows:"[T]hereare . extraordinarycircumstancesherebecauseoftheimmediateconcerns   aboutthecustodyofthechildren,whichhavenotyetbeenresolved   bythecourtsinIndia.Aslongasthefederalclaimsarenot `  fullyresolved,proceedingsinIndiamaybedelayed."). 6     Raheman'sassertiontothecontrarynotwithstanding,itisof  2  noimportthatthe2255motionwasfiledprose.SeeEllisv.   UnitedStates,313F.3d636,652(1stCir.2002)("Aconvicted   criminalhasnoconstitutionalrighttocounselwithrespectto d  habeasproceedings."). !USUS.,  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * !     oXXxoUnitedStatesCourtofAppeals#ox##XeXo#  $XXe1$FortheFirstCircuit#$1##XeX$#      `  A') ` dE< ` A   No.022215 K  @UNITEDSTATESOFAMERICA,  G  @&Appellee,   @tt)v. O  @_FAZAL_ԄUR_RAHEMAN_Ԅ_FAZAL_Ԁ K  @<< a/k/a_Fazal_Ԁ_Raheman_, ! @ Defendant,Appellant. } A') ` dE<(` A )y @ APPEALFROMTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT ^ @0 0 FORTHEDISTRICTOFMASSACHUSETTS   @  [Hon.PattiB.Saris,U.S.DistrictJudge] f A') ` dE<` A b @'Before G   @@((Selya,CircuitJudge,   Stapleton,*SeniorCircuitJudge,and y! Howard,CircuitJudge. O " A') ` dE<"` A "!%       Robert_Osuna_,withwhomLawOfficeofRobert_Osuna_,P.C.was #' onbrief,forappellant. $(   JohnT._McNeil_,AssistantUnitedStatesAttorneywithwhom b% ) MichaelJ.Sullivan,UnitedStatesAttorney,wasonbrief,for 8&!* appellee. '^"+ *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  )$.)$  SI)D%/ @38006@SJanuary21,2004 *&1  RHC+&2" @38006 @ R()D%3  ( (sx3* !򀀀 ,'3 *OftheThirdCircuit,sittingbydesignation. |-(4? _ԇ53  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3     8eeeXXdd8m*,X` XX*",US ,  (:!&),Ԁ53  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  3  {m"FUS ,  (:!&)US ,  (:!&)FOY  ` HOWARD,CircuitJudge .Followingasevendaytrial,a  juryconvicteddefendantappellantFazalRaheman,M.D.,of x internationalparentalkidnappingandillegalinterceptionofwire $t communications.See18U.S.C.1204("InternationalParental   KidnappingCrimeAct"or"IPKCA")and2511(1)(a).Thislengthy |  appealrequiresustodecide,interalia,(1)whetheraparentcan ( x  beprosecutedunderIPKCAforconductthatwouldnotbecriminal $  understatelaw;and(2)whetherthedistrictcourthadsentencing   authoritytoimposeuponRahemananorderrequiringhisimmediate ,|  cooperationinthereturnofthechildren. Weholdthat(1)such ( aprosecutionisconsistentwiththelanguageandintentofthe  statute;and(2)thedistrictcourtdidnothaveauthorityto 0 imposesuchanorder.  ,   I.      ` Wesetforththefactsinthelightmostfavorabletothe P verdict.SeeUnitedStatesv.Diaz,300F.3d66,69(1stCir. L 2002).    ` AftermarryingSaihbaAliinIndiainMay1990,Raheman T!" andhiswifereturnedtoMassachusetts,wherehehadbeenemployed #P$ forthepastyear.In1992,thecouplebecamepermanentresidents. $& Laterthatyear,theirchild,adaughter,wasbornin X&!( Massachusetts,makingheranAmericancitizenbybirth.Asonwas (T#* borninIndiain1996;hebecameanaturalizedAmericancitizentwo )%, yearslater. \+&.  ` By1996,Ali'sandRaheman'smarriagewassuffering.  RahemanhadbecomeconcernedthatAlihadbecometooindependent, \ andhehadrepeatedlythreatenedtosendthechildrentoIndiato X livewithhismotherifherbehaviorpersisted.OnSeptember17,   1997,Alimovedherselfandthechildrenfromthefamilyhomein `  Burlington,Massachusetts,toanapartmentinCambridge,  \  Massachusetts.    ` Displeasedbyhiswife'saction,Rahemanagainthreatened d  tomovethechildrentoIndia.HealsotoldAlithat,ifshewent `  tothepoliceorthecourtsregardingtheirseparationorhis   threats,he"wouldbecomealethalweapon."InearlyOctober h 1997,AliinformedRahemanthat,becauseofhisthreats,shewould d havetogotothepoliceorcourtsforhelp.Rahemanthenchanged  histacticsandtoldherthathewouldnotremovethechildrento l India.Herequested,however,thatshenottakehim"infrontof h ajudge."Atthisjuncture,RahemanandAlibegantodiscusslegal  separation,butRahemaninsistedthattheseparationtakeplace p  withoutresorttotheAmericanlegalsystem. !l"  ` Meanwhile,Rahemanwascovertlymonitoringhiswife's "$ activities.Hehadaminiaturevideocamerasurreptitiously t$& installedinherbedroom,hiredaprivateinvestigatortofollow  &p!( andvideotapeher,andaskedhisnephewtomoveintoAli's '#* apartmentbuildingtospy.Inaddition,fromNovember1,1997, x)$, throughNovember11,1997,RahemantappedAli'sapartment $+t&. telephone.Duringthisperiod,hesurreptitiouslyrecorded"more  than100hours"ofherprivateconversations. \  ` OnNovember14,1997,Rahemantraveledtohisformerhome X inNagpur,India.There,heenrolledhisdaughterinschooland   filedapetitionforcustodyofthechildrenintheNagpurFamily `  Court,allegingthathiswifewasengagedinanadulterous  \  relationshipandthat,asaresult,heshouldbeawardedcustody.   HereturnedtotheUnitedStatesonNovember18,1997. d   ` OnNovember25,1997,Rahemanarrangedtovisithis `  childrenthenextday.RahemaninformedAlithatheplannedto   takethechildrentoamuseumandwouldreturnthemlaterinthe h evening.HetoldAlinothingofhisrecenttriptoIndia.Later d thatsameday,hepurchasedairlineticketsforhimselfandthe  childrentoflyfromNewYorktoIndiaonNovember26th.The l children'sticketswereoneway. h  ` Afterpickingupthechildrenearlyintheafternoonon  November26th,RahemandrovetoNewYorkbutmissedtheflight. p  TheyflewtoIndiathenextday.AtthetimeRahemanleftthe !l" UnitedStates,heandAliwerestillmarriedandthereexistedno "$ courtorderoragreementbetweenthemaffectingcustodyofthe t$& children.  &p!(  ` AtRaheman'srequest,oneofhiscousinstelephonedAli '#* withthenewsthatRahemanandthechildrenwereonaflightto x)$, India.Afterreceivingthiscall,Alicalledthepolicetoreport $+t&. thatherchildrenhadbeenkidnapped.Twodayslater,Ali  obtainedfromaMassachusettsProbateCourtanemergencycustody \ order,whichaCambridgepoliceofficersubsequentlyreadto X Rahemanoverthetelephone.Soonthereafter,onDecember2,1997,   RahemanobtainedhisowncustodyorderfromtheNagpurFamily `  Court.  \   ` BetweenNovember1997andAugust1998,Alisoughtthe   assistanceofseveralfederalagenciesinanunsuccessfulattempt d  toobtainlawfulphysicalcustodyofherchildren.Inaddition, `  sheobtainedUnitedStatescitizenshipforherselfandhersonand   hiredalawyerinIndia. h  ` InlateAugust1998,AlitraveledtoIndiatoattemptto d obtaincustodyofherchildrenfromtheIndiacourts.Raheman  foughthereffortsandfiledseveralcriminalcomplaintsagainst l her.BeforeIndianauthoritiescouldapprehendher,Alifledto h theUnitedStates.InSeptember2000,whileAliwasintheUnited  States,RahemanobtainedfromtheIndiancourtasecondcustody p  orderbasedprimarilyonaprovisionofIslamiclawthatgrantsa !l" fatherfullcustodyifthemotherlivesasignificantdistancefrom "$ thefather. t$& Ѐ ` OnJuly25,2001,Rahemanwasindictedbyafederalgrand  &p!( juryononecountofinternationalparentalkidnapping.See18 '#* U.S.C.1204.Laterin2001,uponreturningtotheUnitedStates x)$, toparticipateinacivillawsuit,Rahemanwasarrestedon_the $+t&. federalcharge.OnJanuary16,2002,agrandjuryreturneda  supersedingindictmentwhichaddedonecountofunlawful \ wiretapping.See18U.S.C.2511(1)(a).OnMarch6,2002, X _Raheman_Ԁwasconvictedonbothcounts.Hewassentencedtothree   yearsofimprisonment,tobefollowedbythreeyearsofsupervised `  release.Additionally,hewasorderedtocooperateimmediatelyin  \  thereturnofthechildrentoAli'scustody.     ` Thisappealfollowed.  #  1      ׀  d    II.  `     ` Wearepresentedwithsixissuesonappeal:(1)whether ( _Raheman_'sconductfallswithinthecriminalprohibitionsof_IPKCA_,  and,ifso,whetherthestatuteisunconstitutionalasappliedto 0 him;(2)whetherthedistrictcourterredininstructingthejury , that,asamatteroflaw,bothAliand_Raheman_Ԁhadparentalrights  tophysicalcustodyofthechildrenatthetime_Raheman_Ԁtookthem 4 toIndia;(3)whetherthedistrictcourtabuseditsdiscretionin 0 admittingevidenceofthreatsallegedlymadeby_Raheman_Ԁagainst   Ali;(4)whetherthejuryinstructionsonthewiretappingcharge 8!" wereconstitutionallyinsufficientinlightof_Apprendi_v.New "4$  Jersey,530U.S.466(2000);(5)whetherthedistrictcourtimposed $& _animproper"forthwith"order;and(6)whethertrialcounselwas  ineffective.  #  2      ׀  \   ` A.TheInternationalParentalKidnappingCrimeAct  X  ` Raheman'sprincipalargumentonappealisthathisIPKCA   convictionshouldbereversedfortwoseparatereasons:(1)"the |  evidenceadducedattrial...failstostateacrime[under ( x  IPKCA]"becausethechargedconducthasnotbeencriminalizedby $  statelaw;and(2)thestatute"isunconstitutionalasappliedto   [him]."Ourstandardofreviewisdenovo.SeeUnitedStatesv. ,|  Robinson,137F.3d652,653(1stCir.1998)("Wereviewdenovo ( constitutionalchallengestofederalstatutes.");UnitedStatesv.  Jones,10F.3d901,904(1stCir.1993)("Statutoryinterpretation 0 isaquestionoflawand,therefore,issubjecttodenovo , review.").    ` Wenoteattheoutsetanundisputedfact:under 4 Massachusettslaw,Rahemandidnothingcriminal. InCommonwealth 0 v.Beals,541N.E.2d1011,1015(Mass.1989),theSupremeJudicial   Courtmadeclearthat"[a]parentwhohastakenhisorherchildren 8!" fromtheotherparentbeforetherewasanycourtproceedingcannot "4$  beconvictedofparentalkidnappingunder[Mass.Gen.L.ch.]265, $& 26A."(emphasisadded).  #  3      ׀SinceRahemanremovedhischildren!   residentsofMassachusettspriortosuchaproceeding,hecould \ nothavebeenconvictedofkidnappingunderstatelaw.Ofcourse, X thataparticularStatefailstoprohibitcertainconductdoesnot   obligateCongresstodothesame. `   (1)StatutoryAnalysis   \   ` In1993,byvirtueofitscommercepower,seeUnited $  Statesv.Cummings,281F.3d1046,1051(9thCir.),cert.denied,   537U.S.895(2002),andto"detertheremovalofchildrenfromthe ,|  UnitedStatestoforeigncountriesinordertoobstructparental ( rights,"CongresspassedtheInternationalParentalKidnapping  CrimeAct,whichcreatesa"[f]ederalfelonyoffenseof 0 internationalparentalkidnapping."H.R.Rep.No.103390,at1 , (1993),reprintedin1993U.S.C.C.A.N.2419,2419(emphasisadded).  ThelegislativehistoryexplainsthatIPKCAwasenactedasa 4 domesticresponsetoissuesleftunaddressedbyinternationallaw: 0 8 ` Thereisaninternationalcivilmechanism   relatingtothesecases,theHagueConvention b ! onInternationalParentalChildKidnapping, 8!" forwhichCongresspassedimplementing  legislationin1988.Asaresultofthis  convention,thesignatorieswillrecognizethe \ custodydecreesofothersignatories,thereby 2 facilitatingthereturnofabductedchildren. X However,mostcountries(includingIndia)are . notsignatoriestotheConvention,thus   leavingindividualcountriestotakewhatever   legalunilateralactiontheycantoobtainthe `  returnofabductedchildren.6  ` x` x 8 ` Creatingafederalfelonyoffenserespondsto  2  theseproblems....dXeXXXe ` x` x &`Id.at3#XeXXdXec#Ԁ(parenthetidXeXXXecalandemphasesadded). d   ` Withthesegoalsinmind,thestatuteprovides,in `  pertinentpart,asfollows:   8 ` (a)WhoeverremovesachildfromtheUnited h States,orattemptstodoso,orretainsa > child(whohasbeenintheUnitedStates) d outsidetheUnitedStateswithintentto : obstructthelawfulexerciseofparental  rightsshallbefinedunderthistitleor  imprisonednotmorethan3years,orboth.l` x` x 8 ` (b)Asusedinthissection!...(2)the h term"parentalrights",withrespecttoa > child,meanstherightofphysicalcustodyof  thechild!(A)whetherjointorsole(and  includesvisitingrights);and(B)whether p  arisingbyoperationoflaw,courtorder,or F ! legallybindingagreementoftheparties.\e!l"` x` x 18U.S.C.1204. "$  ` Rahemanwasconvictedunder1204(a)for"remov[ing]a t$& childfromtheUnitedStates...orretain[ing]achild...  &p!( outsidetheUnitedStateswithintenttoobstructthelawful '#* exerciseofparentalrights"conductthat,asindicatedabove, x)$, isnotcriminalunderMassachusettslaw.SeeBeals,541N.E.2dat $+t&. 1015.Henowarguesthatthegovernment"hasmadeafederal  offenderoutofaperson[acting]inthelawfulexerciseofhisown \ parentalrightsgrantedunderhisownstatelaw[thereby]... X creat[ing]animpermissibleexpansionoftheuseofIPKCAbeyond   thatwhichwasintendedbyCongress."Morespecifically,he `  contendsthat,"absentacustodyorder,apersonmaynotbe  \  properlychargedwitheitherremovalorretention"ofhisown   child. d   ` Wearethuspresentedwiththequestionofwhethera `  parentcanbeconvictedunderIPKCAforengaginginconductthat   wouldnotitselfbecriminalunderstatelaw.Itisaquestionof h firstimpressioninthiscircuitandoneweanswerinthe d affirmative.   `  ThatIPKCAlookstostatefamilylawforpurposesof l defining"parentalrights,"see18U.S.C.1204(b)(2);seealso h H.R.Rep.at4("'Parentalrights'aretobedeterminedby  referencetostatelaw...."),doesnotinanywaysuggestthat p  thestatutedependsuponstatecriminallawtodelineatetherealm !l" ofcircumstancesthroughwhichsuchrightsaretransgressed.By "$ prohibitingthosesituationsinwhichaparent"removesachild t$& fromtheUnitedStates...withintenttoobstructthelawful  &p!( exerciseofparentalrights,"18U.S.C.1204(a),Congresswent '#* furtherthanMassachusetts,whichdoesnotcriminalizesuchconduct x)$, absentapriorcourtproceeding.SeeBeals,541N.E.2dat1015; $+t&. cf.Cummings,281F.3dat1051("[W]hilewerecognizethatissues  offamilylawareusuallymattersfortheStates,IPKCAdealsfirst \ andforemostwithinternationalparentalkidnapping,whichisan X areanottraditionallyreservedtotheStates.Wethereforereject   [defendant's]argumentthat1204(a)trammelstheStates' `  authority.").  \   ` Nowhereinthetextofthestatuteorthelegislative   historydoesCongresslimitthecriminalprohibitionin18U.S.C. d  1204(a)toonlythoseactsthatarecriminalunderstatelaw. `  Compare18U.S.C.1204(a)("Whoeverremovesachildfromthe   UnitedStates,orattemptstodoso....")withMass.Gen.L. h ch.265,26A("Whoever...,withoutlawfulauthority,holdsor d intendstoholdsuchachildpermanentlyorforaprotracted  period....")(emphasesadded).Congresscouldhaveprovided x fortheimprisonmentofanypersonwho,inviolationofStatelaw, $t removesachildfromtheUnitedStates.Itdidnotdoso,andthis   courtwillnotinfersuchalimitationwherethestatutorylanguage |  doesnotsupportit.SeeCampanale&Sons,Inc.v.Evans,311F.3d (!x" 109,117(1stCir.2002)("Ourgeneralrulesofstatutory "$$ interpretationdictateanarrowcourseforusonreview:unlessthe $& statutorylanguageisambiguous,wegenerallyarelimitedbyits ,&|!( plainmeaning."(citationomitted)).  '(#*  ` Althoughnoneofoursistercircuitshasaddressedthe )$, issueherepresented,somehavehadtheopportunitytoapplyIPKCA. 0+&. SeeUnitedStatesv.Amer,110F.3d873,87879(2dCir.1997)  (affirmingdefendant'sconvictionunderIPKCAwithoutreferringto \ NewYork'scriminallaw);UnitedStatesv.Alahmad,211F.3d538, X 541(10thCir.2000)(affirmingdefendant'sconvictionunderIPKCA   ЄwithoutreferencetoColorado'scriminallawuponconcluding `  thatagrandparenthada"parentalright"byvirtueofastate  \  courtorder);UnitedStatesv.Cummings,281F.3d1046(9thCir.   2002)(affirmingconvictionwithoutanexaminationoftheStateof d  Washington'scriminallaw).Rahemanarguesthattheholdingsin `  thesecasessupporthisviewofthestatute.Theydonot,for    neithertheSecondCircuitinAmer,northeTenthCircuitin h Alahmad,northeNinthCircuitinCummingsheld!orotherwise d hintedthattherespectiveconvictionsunderIPKCAhingedonthe  criminallawoftherespectiveState. l  ` Havingdeterminedthataparentcanbeprosecutedunder h IPKCAwithoutnecessarilyhavingviolatedstatecriminallaw,we  mustnextconsiderwhetherRahemanissuchaparent.Inshort,we p  agreewiththegovernmentthatRaheman'sconductwasa"textbook !l" caseofinternationalparentalkidnapping,fallingsquarelywithin "$ theambitofthefederalstatute." t$&  ` OnthedayRahemanremovedthechildrenfrom  &p!( MassachusettstoIndia,Alihada"rightofphysicalcustody"of '#* thechildrenunderMassachusettslaw.See18U.S.C.1204(b);see x)$, alsoBeals,541N.E.2dat1014("[T]helawofMassachusetts $+t&. recognizesbothparents'equalrightstocustodyoftheir  children."(citationsomitted)).InBeals,theSupremeJudicial \ Courtexpresslyrecognized"theprinciplethat,priortoacourt X order,bothparentshavelawfulcustodyoftheirchildren...."   Id.(emphasisadded).ThatRahemanandAlisharedcustodyoftheir `  childrenisofnoimportunderthefederalstatute.See18U.S.C.  \  1204(b)(2)("[T]heterm'parentalrights,'withrespecttoa   child,meanstherightofphysicalcustodyofthechild!(A) d  whetherjointorsole(andincludesvisitingrights);and(B) `  whetherarisingbyoperationoflaw,courtorder,orlegally   bindingagreementoftheparties."(emphasesadded)).Accordingly, h forIPKCApurposes,Alihad"parentalrights"thatwerefederally d enforceableandincapableofbeingextinguishedbyRaheman's  abilityunderstatelawtotakeexclusivepossessionofthe l childrenwithoutrepercussion.SeeArt.VI,cl.2,U.S.Const.  h ThejuryhavingfoundthatRahemanremovedhischildrenfromthe  UnitedStateswiththe"intenttoobstructthelawfulexercise"of p  theserights,18U.S.C.1204(a),weconcludethatRahemanwas !l" properlyconvictedofafederaloffenseunderIPKCA. "$  (2)ConstitutionalConsiderations t$&  ` Rahemannextarguesthat,becausehehadnonoticethat <&!( hewascommittingacrime,IPKCAdepriveshimofhisconstitutional '8#* rightstodueprocess.SeeU.S.Const.,Amend.V.Specifically, )$, hecontendsthat @+&. OY    8 ` [n]owhereintheIPKCAtext,thecaselaw,or  thelegislativehistorydoesitstatethata  parentwillbeprosecutedunderIPKCAwhen \ exercisingtheirownrightsunderstatelaw. 2 Nowhereisthereanexpressedorevenimplied X intenttoalter,expand,subvertorignore . statecustodylaw/rights....Asinthis   case,ifadefendantisnotviolatingacourt   order,alegallybindingagreementorthe `  operationofhisownstatelaw...,hehas 6   notbeengivennoticeofacrime[that]heis  \  committingoutsideoftheseparameters. 2 ` x` x y ` Weareunpersuaded.BothIPKCA'slanguageandits   applicationtoRaheman'ssituationarestraightforward:solongas :  Alihad"parentalrights"!atermencompassingevenmere 6 visitationrights!Rahemanwasnotpermittedtotakethechildren  outsidetheUnitedStateswiththeintenttoobstructthoserights. > See18U.S.C.1204(a).WethereforeconcludethatRahemanhad : fairwarningunderthestatute;inotherwords,ashereapplied,  IPKCA'sprohibitionswere"sufficientlydefinitetoapprisea B personofordinaryintelligencethathisanticipatedbehaviorwill > transgressthelaw."UnitedStatesv.Arcadipane,41F.3d1,5  (1stCir.1994)(citationomitted).ThatRahemanmighthavebeen F ! ignorantofIPKCAorconfusedaboutCongress'sauthorityto !B# prohibitconductnotproscribedbystatelawisinsufficientto #% proveadeprivationofdueprocess.SeeUnitedStatesv.Denis, J% ' 297F.3d25,28(1stCir.2002)("Itisafundamentalmaximofour &F") legalsystemthat'ignoranceofthelaworamistakeoflawisno (#+ defensetocriminalprosecution.'")(quotingCheekv.United N*%- States,498U.S.192,199(1991)). +J'/ SS `  B.JuryInstructionsastoAli'sParentalRights  S  ` Rahemannextcomplainsthatthedistrictcourterredin  instructingthejurythat,asamatteroflaw,Alihad"parental w rights"underMassachusettslaw.  #  4      ׀Hearguesthat,becausesucha # s questionis"amixedquestionoflawandfactforthejury,"these   instructionsviolatedhisconstitutionalrighttoajurytrial. {   Rahemanconcedesthathedidnotofferacontemporaneousobjection 'w  totheinstruction.Nevertheless,hecontendsthatthecourt's #  failuretoinstructthejuryonthe"parentalrights"elementof   theoffensewasastructuralerrorwhichrequires"automatic  reversal." \  ` Raheman's"automaticreversal"argumentiswrongbecause X theallegederrorisnot"structural."  #  5      ׀TheSupremeCourthas   limitedthedefinitionofastructuralerrortothoseerrorsthat `  "infecttheentiretrialprocess."SeeBrechtv.Abrahamson,507  \  U.S.619,630(1993).TheCourthasclassifiedanerroras   structuralinonly"averylimitedclassofcases."Johnson,520 d  U.S.at468.Examplesincludecompletedenialofcounsel, `  seeGideonv.Wainwright,372U.S.335(1963),presenceofabiased   trialjudge,seeTumeyv.Ohio,273U.S.510(1927),racial h discriminationintheselectionofagrandjury,seeVasquezv. d Hillery,474U.S.254(1986),denialofselfrepresentationat  trial,seeMcKasklev.Wiggins,465U.S.168(1984),denialofa l publictrial,seeWallerv.Georgia,467U.S.39(1984),and h offeringadefectivereasonabledoubtinstruction,seeSullivanv.  Louisiana,508U.S.275(1993).Moreover,theCourthasexpressly p  heldthattheerrorRahemanallegesthattheinstructions !l" omittedanelementoftheoffensefromthejury'sconsideration "$ doesnotconstitutestructuralerror.SeeNederv.UnitedStates,  527U.S.1,711(1999).Justthisterm,theSupremeCourt \ unanimouslyreiteratedthat"thetrialcourt'sfailuretoinstruct X ajuryonallofthestatutoryelementsofanoffenseissubjectto   harmlesserroranalysis"andthereforeisnotastructuralerror. `  Mitchellv.Esparza,124S.Ct.7,11(2004)(percuriam)(citing  \  cases).   e ` InbothMitchellandNeder,theSupremeCourt d  distinguisheditsdecisioninSullivanv.Louisiana,508U.S.275 `  (1993)theprimarycaseonwhichRahemanreliestoarguethathe   isentitledto"automaticreversal."InSullivan,theCourtheld h thatthetrialcourtcommittedastructuralerrorbyfailingto d instructthejurythatthegovernmentmustprovetheelementsofan  offensebeyondareasonabledoubtbecausefailingtoprovidea l correctreasonabledoubtinstruction"vitiatesallthejury's h findings."Id.at281(emphasisinoriginal).MitchellandNeder  distinguishedSullivanbecause,whiletheerroneousreasonabledoubt p  instructioninSullivanaffectedallofthejury'sfindings,the !l" failuretoinstructthejuryonasingleelementofanoffensedoes "$ nothavethesameimpactonthejury'sotherconclusions.See124 t$& S.Ct.at11;527U.S.at11.Accordingly,theCourtdeterminedthat  &p!( anappellatecourtshouldexaminetheevidenceintroducedattrial '#* todecideifthetrialcourt'sfailuretoinstructonasingle x)$, elementoftheoffensewasharmless.Id.BecauseRaheman's $+t&. argumentresemblesNederandMitchell,inthatheallegesthatthe  districtcourtpreventedthejuryfromconsideringoneelementof \ theoffense(i.e.,theexistenceofparentalrights),Sullivan's X automaticreversalruledoesnotapply.    ` HavingconcludedthatRaheman'sunderlyingargument,if `  correct,doesnotmandateautomaticreversal,weapplyour  \  traditionalplainerroranalysistoreviewhisclaim.SeeFed.R.   Crim.P.52(b).Toestablishplainerror,Rahemanmustdemonstrate d  (1)anerror,(2)thatisplain,(3)thataffectssubstantialrights `  (i.e.,theerrorwasnotharmless),and(4)thatseriously   underminesthefairness,integrity,orpublicreputationofjudicial h proceedings.SeeRamirezBurgosv.UnitedStates,313F.3d23,29 d (1stCir.2002) . Becauseweconcludethatanyerrordidnotaffect  Raheman's"substantialrights,"weproceeddirectlytothethird  prongoftheplainerroranalysis. 4  ` UnderIPKCA,parentalrights(e.g.,therighttophysical 0 custodyofthechildwhetherjointorsole)canbedefinedby   operationoflaw,courtorder,orlegallybindingagreement.The 8!" districtcourtbeganitsinstructionsbytellingthejurythat, "4$ underMassachusettslaw,bothparents,absentacourtorderor $& legallybindingagreement,maintainequalrightstothephysical <&!( custodyoftheirchildren."Incriminalcases...thejudgemust '8#* bepermittedtoinstructthejuryonthelawandtoinsistthatthe )$, juryfollow[her]instructions."UnitedStatesv.Gaudin,515U.S. @+&. 506,513(1995).Thus,whereafederalprosecutionhingesonan  interpretationorapplicationofstatelaw,itisthedistrict \ court'sfunctiontoexplaintherelevantstatelawtothejury. X SeeUnitedStatesv.Clements,588F.2d1030,1037(5thCir.1979).   Accordingly,thedistrictcourtactedproperlybyexplainingtothe `  jurytheMassachusettsdefinitionofparentalrights.  \   ` Theonlypossibleerrorinthedistrictcourt's   instructionwasthatitdidnotpermitthejurytoapplythe d  relevantfactstothelegaldefinitionofparentalrightstodecide `  whetherthiselementofthecrimehadbeensatisfied.  #  6      ׀SeeGaudin,   515U.S.at513(notingthatthejurymustdecide"guiltor h innocenceoneveryissue,whichincludesapplicationofthelawto d thefacts").DecidingwhetherAlihadparentalrightsunder  Massachusettslawrequiredthedeterminationofthreefactual l issues:(1)whetherAliwasthemotherofthechildren;(2)whether h thereexistedacourtorderalteringthecustodyrightsas  establishedbyoperationoflaw;and(3)whetherthereexistedan p  agreementbetweenherandRahemanalteringthecustodyrights. !l"  ` Theanswerstothesequestionswereneverindispute. "$ TherewasnoevidencewhatsoeverthatAlididnotpossessparental t$& rightsunderMassachusettslaw.Ali'smaternitystatuswas  &p!( undisputed,andtherewasnoevidenceofacourtorderorbinding '#* agreementbetweenthepartiesthatalteredthecustodystatusofthe  childrenpriortotheirremoval.Thus,eveniftheinstruction \ erroneouslytooktheissuefromthejury,theerrordidnotaffect X Raheman's"substantialrights"becausenoreasonablejurycouldhave   harboredareasonabledoubtthatAlipossessedparentalrightsover `  thechildrenunderMassachusettslaw.Accordingly,therewasno  \  plainerrorinthedistrictcourt'sinstruction.   0 ` C.EvidentiaryRuling{"FUS ,  (:!&)US ,  (:!&)FOY d ` s#` s#  ` Rahemannextarguesthatthedistrictcourterredin ,|  admitting"overlyprejudicial[Fed.R.Evid.]404(b)evidence"of ( allegeddomesticviolence.Ourreviewisforabuseofdiscretion.  SeeLarchv.MansfieldMun.Elec.Dept.,272F.3d63,72(1stCir. 0 2001);seealsoUdembav.Nicoli,237F.3d8,14(1stCir.2001) , ("[A]trialcourtenjoysconsiderablediscretioninconnectionwith  theadmissionorexclusionofevidence...."). 4  ` Inthefallof1997,followingthemaritalseparation, 0 RahemanallegedlymadetwothreatsagainstAli.Attrial,Ali   providedthefollowingtestimonyregardingthesetwoincidents: 8!" 8 ` ALI:Initially,heseemedmystifiedthatI "4$ had...movedoutofthehouse,andhewanted # % toknow...whythathappened.Andthen,the $& nextday,hewasextremelyangryandupsetand f% ' hecameovertothehouseandhetoldmethat <&!( hewasgoingtotakemydaughter,Nida,to 'b") Indiaandhecamelookingforher '8#* passport....Andthen,hesaid,'I'mgoing ($+ tocomebackheretomorrowanddragyoubythe )$, hairandI'mgoingtotakeyouhome.'j*%-` `  8 ` DEFENSECOUNSEL:Objection.,f'/` `  Ї8 ` COURT:Overruled.` `  8 ` ...\` `  8 ` ALI:[Then,][h]etoldmethatifIwenttothe X policeorthecourtforaseparationor . anythinglikethat,hewouldbecomealethal   weapon....   #  7       ` `   ` Priortotrial,thedistrictcourthaddeterminedthatthe 6   evidenceofthesethreatswasoutsidethepurviewofFed.R.Evid.  2  404(b):   8 ` AndanythingthathappenedinSeptember, :  October,November[1997]arepartofthe `  buildup....Issuesofadultery,issuesof 6 domesticabusetheirrelationshipinthat   criticaltimeperiodisessentialtobothof  theirstatesofmind....Idon'tthink  they're404(b)'s.Ithinkthat'sjustpartof  understandingyourintentandyourstateof \ mind.2` `  Ѐ ` Fed.R.Evid404(b)providesthat"[e]videnceofother X crimes,wrongs,oractsisnotadmissibletoprovethecharacterof   thepersoninordertoshowactioninconformitytherewith" `  (emphasisadded).Here,thedistrictcourtsupportablyconcluded  \  thatAli'stestimonywasnotbeingintroducedasevidenceof   Raheman'scharacterforviolenceorcriminalpropensity;rather,it d  wasbeingintroducedaspartofAli'snecessarydescriptionofthe `  eventsleadinguptothecrimesandasintrinsicevidenceofan   elementofthechargedoffense!Raheman'sintenttoobstructthe h lawfulexerciseofAli'sparentalrights.See,e.g.,UnitedStates d v.Shea,159F.3d37,39(1stCir.1998).Accordingly,thecourt  actedwithinitsdiscretionbothindecliningtotreatthetestimony l as"404(b)evidence"andindeterminingitsadmissibilityunder h Rules401and403.   ` Rule401defines"relevantevidence"as"evidencehaving p  anytendencytomaketheexistenceofanyfactthatisof !l" consequencetothedeterminationoftheactionmoreprobableorless "$ probablethanitwouldbewithouttheevidence."Here,thedistrict t$& courtsupportablytreatedtheevidenceofRaheman'sthreatsas  &p!( relevantbecause,asstatedabove,ittendstoshowthatRaheman '#* intendedtodepriveAliofherparentalrights.Specifically,Ali's x)$, testimonyastothenatureofthemarriageandthemannerinwhich $+t&. itdissolved(includingthethreats)providedaglimpseinto  Raheman'sotherwiseinternalizedstateofmind,therebyassisting \ thejuryinunderstandingthemotivatingfactorsbehindRaheman's X decisiontokidnapthechildren.Fromthisevidence,thejury   easilycouldhaveinferredthatRahemanheldagreatdealofanimus `  towardsAli,that(shouldshetakeanyaction)heintendedtopunish  \  her,andthat,bykidnappingthechildren,heaccomplishedhisgoal.   Ѐ  ` Sotoodidthedistrictcourtactwithinitsdiscretion d  innotbarringtheevidenceunderRule403,whichpermitsthe `  exclusionofrelevantevidence"ifitsprobativevalueis   substantiallyoutweighedbythedangerofunfairprejudice...." h Rahemancontendsthatthe"evidencewasusedfornothingmorethan d toprejudicethejurybydemonstratingcriminalpropensityandfor  stirringupinthejury,antiMuslimfervor."  #  8      ׀Butthereisno l indicationthatthisevidencedid!orcouldhavecausedsuch h astir.Noristhereanyindicationthatthegovernmentattempted  todrawuponanyantiMuslimprejudicesthatmighthaveexisted. p  Indeed,giventhefactthatboththemotherandthechildrenwere !l" themselvesMuslim,Raheman'sassertionisabitdifficultto "$ comprehend.Accordingly,wecannotconcludethatadmittingthe t$& challengedevidencewasanabuseofdiscretion.SeeFreemanv.  &p!( PackageMachineryCo.,865F.2d1331,1340(1stCir.1988)("Only '#* rarely!andinextraordinarilycompellingcircumstances!will  we,fromthevistaofacoldappellaterecord,reverseadistrict \ court'sonthespotjudgmentconcerningtherelativeweighingof X probativevalueandunfaireffect.");seealsoUnitedStatesv.   Currier,821F.2d52,55(1stCir.1987)("[W]ewillinterposeour `  judgmentonlyifacomplainingpartycandemonstratethatthe  \  districtcourt'srulingdidnotfallwithintheambitofreasonable   debate."). d    ` D.ApprendiAllegation `   ` Turningtothewiretappingconviction,Rahemancontends ( that"[t]hedistrictcourtcreatedastructuraldefectinnot  instructingthejuryontheseparateoffensesincludedin18U.S.C. 0 2511." Specifically,heclaimsthattheSupremeCourt'sdecision , inApprendiv.NewJersey,530U.S.466(2000),requiredthe  districtcourttoinstructthejuryonthe"threeseparateoffenses" P thatcomprise18U.S.C.2511(4)becauseeach"offense"hasa L differentmaximumpenaltyprovision.Inconsideringthisargument,   weagainapplyplainerrorreviewbecauseofRaheman'sfailureto T!" objectattrial.  #  9      ׀Seesupraat18(listingelementsofplainerror #P$ review).Thistime,becausetherewasnoerror,Raheman'sargument $& faltersatthefirststepoftheplainerroranalysis.18U.S.C.  2511(4)doesnotdefinethreeseparateoffenses;itdefinesone \ offensewithseveralpossiblemitigatingfactors.Aswewill X explain,thesemitigatingfactorsdonotneedtobesubmittedtothe   juryunderApprendi. `    ` Webeginwiththerelevanttermsof18U.S.C.2511.  #  10        \  Thatstatutemakesitunlawful,interalia,tointentionally   interceptanywire,oralorelectroniccommunication.  #  11      ׀For p  punishment,thestatuterefersto18U.S.C.2511(4),which l  providesthatapersoninviolationof18U.S.C.2511(1)(a)"shall  befined... orimprisoned[for]notmorethanfiveyears,or t both"andthendefineslimitedcircumstancesunderwhichadefendant  p iseligibleforashortermaximumsentence.Iftheoffenseis,  interalia,(1)afirstoffense,(2)thatwasnotcommittedfora x  tortiousorillegalpurposeorforacommercialadvantageorgain, $t (3)andtheinterceptedcommunicationisnotscrambledorencrypted,  thedefendantmayreceiveareducedmaximumpenalty.  #  12      ׀ \   ` RahemanclaimsthatApprendimandatesthatthejury X considertheseadditionalfactorsaselementsoftheoffensebecause    theydeterminetheapplicablemaximumsentence.Heiswrong. `   ` InApprendi,theSupremeCourtheldthat  "[o]therthanthe   factofapriorconviction,anyfactthatincreasesthepenaltyfor x acrimebeyondtheprescribedstatutorymaximummustbesubmitted $t toajury,andprovedbeyondareasonabledoubt."530U.S.at490   (emphasisadded).TheCourtstressedthatitsdecisionapplied"to |  factsinaggravationofpunishment"butnotto"factsin ( x  mitigation."Id.at490n.16.Itexplainedthat,whereajudge $  findsafactthatallowsadefendantto"escapethestatutory   maximum,"thejudgeis"neitherexpos[ing]thedefendanttoa ,|  deprivationoflibertygreaterthanthatauthorizedbytheverdict ( accordingtostatute,nor...imposinguponthedefendanta  greaterstigmathanthataccompanyingthejuryverdictalone."Id. 0 Therefore,factsthat,iffound,wouldonlydecreasetheotherwise , applicablemaximumsentence(i.e.,mitigatingfactors)may,  consistentwithApprendi,bedecidedbythecourt.Id. 4  ` TheSecond,Fourth,andSixthCircuits,inapplying 0 Apprendi,haveestablishedausefulmethodologyfordistinguishing   betweenaggravatingandmitigatingfactors.SeeUnitedStatesv. 8!" Hamlin,319F.3d667,67071(4thCir.2003);UnitedStatesv. "4$ Campbell,317F.3d597,603(6thCir.2003);UnitedStatesv.Outen, $& 286F.3d622,63639(2dCir.2002).Underthismethodology,the <&!( courtfirstascertainsthe"baseline"or"default"statutory '8#* provision(i.e.,theprovisionwhichstatesacompletecrimeupon )$, thefewestfacts).Thecourtthenexaminestheadditional @+&. sentencingprovisionstodeterminetheireffectonthemaximum  punishmentdescribedinthebaseline.Ifafactincreasesthe \ maximumpenalty,itisanaggravatingfactorthatmustbesubmitted X tothejuryunderApprendi.Ifafactdecreasesthemaximum   penalty,itisamitigatingfactorthatmaybedecidedbythecourt. `  SeeOuten,286F.3dat639.  \   ` Applyingthismethodologyto18U.S.C.2511(4)   demonstratesthatthestatuteestablishesonecrimewithseveral d  possiblemitigatingfactors.Thebaselinecrimeprovidesthatany `  individualwho"intentionallyintercepts,endeavorstointercept,   orprocuresanyotherpersontointerceptorendeavortointercept, h anywire,oralorelectroniccommunication...shallbe d fined...orimprisonednotmorethanfiveyears,orboth."18  U.S.C.2511(1)(a)&(4)(a).Thestatutethenstatesthatif"the l [baseline]offense"wascommittedundercertainfactual h circumstances,lowermaximumsentencesapply.18U.S.C.  2511(4)(b).Thus,theadditionalfactsstatedin18U.S.C. p  2511(4)(b),iffound,wouldhaveservedonlytodecreasethemaximum !l" sentencewhichRahemanfacedforviolatingthebaselineoffense "$ statedin18U.S.C.2511(1)(a).Therefore,therewasnoApprendi t$& errorinthedistrictcourtdecidingforitselfwhetherRahemanmet  &p!( thesemitigatingfactors. '#*  `  x)$,  ` E.The"Forthwith"Order   ` Rahemannextcontendsthat"the[district]courterredin x imposingasaconditionofsupervisedreleasethat[he]shall $t 'forthwith'takeallreasonablemeasurestoreturnthechildrento   theUnitedStates."SeeU.S.S.G.5D1.3(b)(authorizingthecourt |  toimpose,inadditiontothemandatoryconditionsofsupervised ( x  release,"otherconditionsofsupervisedrelease"totheextentthat $  suchconditionscomplywithvariousstatutoryrequirements).   Becausetheimpositionofthechallengedorderhingesuponthe ,|  sentencingcourt'sconclusionsoflaw,ourreviewisplenary.See ( UnitedStatesv.Matos,328F.3d34,38(1stCir.2003).    ` Initsimpositionofjudgment,undertheheading 0 "ConditionsofSupervisedRelease,"thedistrictcourtimposedupon , Rahemanthestandardconditionswithasingleaddition:  8 ` TheDefendantshallforthwithtakeall 4 reasonablemeasureswithinhiscontrolto  Z returnthechildrentotheUnitedStatesso 0 thattheMiddlesexProbateCourt(orother  appropriatecourt)maydeterminechildcustody   issues,andshallcooperatewithall b ! authoritiesintheUnitedStates,India,and 8!" elsewhere,toeffectuatetheirreturn.n"^#` `  (emphasisadded). # %  ` Duetoits"forthwith"language,thisordergenerated f% ' significantconfusion.Onthreeseparateoccasions,thecourt 'b") elaboratedtheprovision'smeaning:inanorderdatedNovember18, ($+ 2002,thecourtnotedthat"theorderwentintoeffectimmediately j*%- pursuantto18U.S.C.3664(f)(4)and28U.S.C.1651[because] ,f'/ [s]tayingtheorderuntilsupervisedreleasewouldfrustratethe  rightsofthevictims(themotherandthetwochildren)and[would] \ beunenforceablebecausedefendantwillbedeported";inanorder X datedFebruary11,2003,thecourtagainemphasizedthat"[t]he   orderwasmadeeffectiveimmediatelyuponentryofjudgmentbecause `  postponementoftheeffectivedateoftheorderuntilthestartof  \  supervisedreleasewouldnotprovideanadequateremedyforthe   victimsofthecrime..."(emphasisretained);and,atahearing d  inMarch2003,thecourtexplainedthat,"ifithasn'tbeencrystal `  clear,whichIthinkithasbeen,letmejustreiterate,itwas   forthwith!itwasnotaconditionofsupervisedrelease,because h bythetimeIhitsupervisedrelease,thechildrenareofanage d whereeitherit'sjustamootpointorunderMuslimlaw,I'mtold,  itmakesadifference...."  #  13      ׀AttheMarch2003hearing,the l courtdeniedthegovernment'srequestforacontempthearing, h stating: "Ihavedeniedit,becauseIwanttoseewhattheFirst  Circuitisgoingtodofirst....[U]suallyallordersare p  conditionsofsupervisedrelease.Thisisdifferent.Thiswas !l" immediate,forthwith,asyouallknow,becauseotherwiseyou "$ basicallyremovedtherelief." t$&  ` Clearly,then,despiteitsplacementundertheheading  &p!( "ConditionsofSupervisedRelease,"thechallengedorderwasnota '#* conditionofsupervisedrelease;rather,itwasanorderdesigned  totakeeffectimmediately(i.e.,whileRahemanwasservinghis \ prisonterm).Sounderstood,theauthoritytopasssuchanorder X couldnotderivefromU.S.S.G.5D1.3becausetheprovisionsof   thatguidelineonlyinvolve"conditionsofsupervisedrelease."See `  also18U.S.C.3624(e)("Thetermofsupervisedreleasecommences  \  onthedaythepersonisreleasedfromimprisonment....").   Accordingly,wemustdecidewhether,asthegovernmentargues,there d  existsanalternatesourceofauthorityundereither(1)the `  restitutionstatutes;or(2)theAllWritsAct.    (1)RestitutionStatutes  h  ` Asentencingcourthasauthoritytoimposerestitution. 0 See18U.S.C.3663(a)(authorizingstatute);seealsoid. , 3553(a)("Thecourt,indeterminingtheparticularsentencetobe  imposed,shallconsider!...theneedtoproviderestitutionto 4 anyvictimsoftheoffense.").Specifically,18U.S.C.3664(f) 0 providesthat:   8 ` (3)(A)Arestitutionordermaydirectthe 8!" defendanttomakeasingle,lumpsumpayment, "^# partialpaymentsatspecifiedintervals,in "4$ kindpayments,oracombinationofpaymentsat # % specifiedintervalsandinkindpayments.$&` `  8 ` ...<&!(` `  8 ` (4)Aninkindpaymentdescribedin '8#* paragraph(3)maybeintheformof!(A) ($+ returnofproperty;(B)replacementof )$, property;or(C)ifthevictimagrees,services j*%- renderedtothevictimorapersonor @+&. organizationotherthanthevictim.,f'/` `  OY      (emphasisadded).   ` Thegovernmentassertsthat"thedistrictcourthasthe 2 authoritytoorderRahemantoperformservices[i.e.,returnthe . children]directlytothevictim...,solongasthevictim   consents."Insodoing,thegovernmentmakesnoattempttoequate 6   themandatesofthedistrictcourt'sforthwithorder!to  2  "forthwithtakeallreasonablemeasureswithinhiscontroltoreturn   thechildrentotheUnitedStates"withthe"inkindpayments" :  contemplatedbyCongressin18U.S.C.3664(f)(3)(A),(4).Indeed, 6 atoralargument,thegovernmentconcededthatitwasunabletofind  anycaselawwhereintheimpositionofasimilarconditionwas > affirmedonthebasisoftherestitutionstatutes. :  ` We,too,havefoundnothinginthecaselaworlegislative  historythatcharacterizeschildreneitherastraditional B restitutionorasinkindpayments.Inourview,thisvoidis > neitherastonishingnordeservingofextensiveelaboration.  Childrenarenot"property"noristheirtransfera"service,"and F ! wedeclinetheinvitationtoholdotherwise. !B#  (2)AllWritsAct  #%   ` Inafinalattempttosalvagetheorder,thegovernment f% ' assertsthat,"totheextentthatthisCourtconcludesthatthe 'b") districtcourtwasnotspecificallyauthorizedtoissueaforthwith ($+  orderpursuantto18U.S.C.3664(f)(4),thedistrictcourt j*%- properlyrelieduponitsgeneralauthorityundertheAllWritsAct,  28U.S.C.1651(a)."Wedisagree. \   ` UndertheAllWritsAct,Congressauthorizedfederal X courtsto"issueallwritsnecessaryorappropriateinaidoftheir   respectivejurisdictionsandagreeabletotheusagesandprinciples `  oflaw."28U.S.C.1651(a)(emphasisadded).Theword"their,"  \  ofcourse,referstothefederalcourts!andnot,forexample,to   statefamilycourts.Here,thedistrictcourthadcriminal d  jurisdictionoverRaheman,see18U.S.C.3231,butdidnothave `  jurisdictionoverthecustodyofthechildren.Sounderstood,we   concludethattheforthwithorderwenttoofar. h  ` Asthelawnowstands,theforthwithorder"toreturnthe d childrentotheUnitedStates"wasnotanecessaryconcomitantof  anappropriatepenaltyinthiscase;  #  14      ׀instead,itserved,atleast l inpart,asamechanismthroughwhichtheMiddlesexProbateCourt h couldeffectuateitsownjurisdictionoverthecustodyofthe  children.Indeed,theorderitselfexpressessuchapurpose.<  #  15      ׀For p  thesereasons,then,thedistrictcourt'sorderwasneither !l"  "necessary"nor"appropriate"toeffectuate!orotherwiseaidin "$ Є!itsownjurisdiction,andthereaccordinglywasnobasisforthe  invocationoftheAllWritsAct. \  (3)Disposition  X  ` Havingdiscernednoauthorityfortheimpositionofthis   forthwithorder,itmustbevacated.Wenote,however,thatifan |  ordertoreturnthechildrenwere,asoriginallycontemplated, ( x  imposedasaconditionofsupervisedrelease,itwouldappeartobe $  lawfulandappropriate.SeeAmer,110F.3dat88283("The'return'   condition[ofsupervisedrelease]isobviouslycloselyrelatedto ,|  thenatureandcircumstancesofthe#XeXXdXed#bX XXXeԀ#XeX XbX#dXeXXXeԀoffenseofchildabductionand ( thehistoryandcharacteristicsof[thedefendant].Indeed,itis   difficulttoimagineaconditionmorecloselytailoredtothecrime h andthecriminalinquestionthanthisone."(internalquotation d marksomittedandemphasisadded)).Wearemindfulofthe  government'sconcernthatsuchacondition(asopposedtoaparallel l forthwithorder)mightleavethemother!and,perhaps,the h childrenwithoutanadequateremedy.Ifthisindeedisthecase,   thegovernmentmightdowelltopetitionCongressforasolution p!" ratherthaninvitingthiscourttoinventone. #l$  ` Inviewofthedistrictcourt'sobviousintentandthe $ & uncertaintyaccompanyingwhetherthe"returnthechildren"directive t&!( should(orshouldnot)beconstruedasaconditionofsupervised  (p#*  release,webelievethattheendsofjusticerequireustoremand )%, forresentencingsothatthecourtmay,inlightofthisopinion,  reconsiderthestatusandwordingofthiscondition. \     ` F.IneffectiveAssistanceofCounsel X  ` Finally,Rahemanarguesthat,becausehehad"important   testimonytogiveregardingthekidnappingchargeandastrongneed |  torefrainfromtestifyingonthewiretappingcharge,"trialcounsel ( x  wasineffectivebecausehemadenomotiontoseverthecharges. On $  thisbasis,Rahemaninvitesusto"vacatetheconvictionsandremand   thematterfortwoseparatetrialsoneachcharge...."  H   ` Wedeclinetheinvitation.Thiscircuithasheld"with D aregularityborderingonthemonotonousthatfactspecificclaims  ofineffectiveassistancecannotmaketheirdebutondirectappeal L ofcriminalconvictions,but,rather,mustoriginallybepresented H to,andacted%  %)(uponby,thetrialcourt."UnitedStatesv.Mala,7  F.3d1058,1063(1stCir.1993)(collectingcases).Absenttherare P occasionwhere,ondirectappeal,therecordissufficientlyclear L toallowreasonedconsiderationoftheineffectiveassistanceclaim,   see,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Natanel,938F.2d302,309(1stCir. T!" 1991),"[t]hepreferablevehicleforsuch[a]claim[]isa #P$ collateralproceedingunder28U.S.C.2255,inwhichtheparties $& andthedistrictcourtcanaddressfactualmattersrelevanttothe X&!( issue."UnitedStatesv.Genao,281F.3d305,313(1stCir.2002) (T#*  (citationomitted). )%,  ` Here,forreasonsweneednotelaborateupon,therecord   isinsufficientlydevelopedtoallowformeaningfulreviewondirect \ appeal.Accordingly,Rahemanmustpursuehisclaiminthe X traditionalfashion.  #  16      #XeXXdXe#bX XXXe   #XeX XbXW-#dXeXXXev-   III.  `  - ` Forthereasonsstatedabove,we affirm theconvictions, ( x   vacate theforthwithorder,and remand forresentencingforthe @  impositionofanyconditionsofsupervisedreleasethatthedistrict   courtmaydeemappropriateinlightofthisopinion. d   ` Itissoordered.  S `    i/0124567(0x S#XeXXdXe-#