United States v. Tawnya Bearcomesout , 696 F. App'x 241 ( 2017 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 17 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 16-30276
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 1:16-cr-00013-SPW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
TAWNYA BEARCOMESOUT,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Susan P. Watters, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 9, 2017**
Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Tawnya Bearcomesout appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion
to dismiss the indictment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction for involuntary
manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 1112(a). We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Bearcomesout’s request for
oral argument is denied.
Bearcomesout argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred her successive
homicide prosecutions by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the United States
government because the two entities are not separate sovereigns. This argument is
foreclosed. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1870-72 (2016)
(successive prosecutions for the same offense are not barred by the Double
Jeopardy Clause if brought by separate sovereigns, and Indian Tribes “count as
separate sovereigns under the Double Jeopardy Clause”). Furthermore,
Bearcomesout has not shown impermissible collusion between the United States
government and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe such that an exception applies under
Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121 (1959). See United States v. Lucas, 841 F.3d 796,
803 (9th Cir. 2016) (impermissible collusion occurs where “the prosecutors of one
sovereign so thoroughly dominate or manipulate the prosecutorial machinery of the
other sovereign that the latter retains little or no volition in its own proceedings”
(internal quotations omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 16-30276