Opinion ID: 3150837
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Objection to jurisdiction

Text: Stanford first asserts that the SEC did not have regulatory authority over SIB, which is an offshore institution located on the island of Antigua. This assertion forms the basis for Stanford’s claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the criminal case against him. We review jurisdictional questions de novo. United States v. Traxler, 764 F.3d 486, 488 (5th Cir. 2014). 4 Case: 12-20411 Document: 00513252078 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/29/2015 No. 12-20411 It is unnecessary to determine whether the SEC had regulatory authority over SIB, as neither the SEC nor SIB are parties to this criminal case. The district court had jurisdiction over Stanford’s case pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. Stanford does not offer any reason why the district court would not have jurisdiction over him personally for the various federal criminal offenses with which he was charged. As a result, his objection fails.