United States v. Adrien Matuck , 644 F. App'x 778 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 16 2016
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 13-30004
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 4:12-cr-00022-SEH-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ADRIEN JOHN MATUCK,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted February 2, 2016
Seattle, Washington
Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
We consider Adrien Matuck’s challenges to his conviction for first degree
murder.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I
The government presented sufficient evidence upon which the jury could
conclude that Matuck was an “Indian” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a).
The “Certificate of Indian Blood” presented at trial stated both that Matuck had a
total quantum of 15/16 Indian blood and that he was enrolled in the Hualapai Tribe
of Peach Springs, Arizona. This tribe is included in the Bureau of Indian Affairs’
list of federally recognized tribes. See 75 Fed. Reg. 60,810, 60,811 (Oct. 1, 2010).
Such evidence satisfies our Circuit’s test for Indian status under § 1153. See
United States v. Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103, 1115–16 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).
II
The government was not required to show that the murder victim was also
an Indian to establish jurisdiction over Matuck’s crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a)
(conferring jurisdiction over certain crimes committed “against the person or
property of another Indian or other person” (emphasis added)); United States v.
Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir. 2005).
III
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Matuck’s motion
for a new trial, which he failed to support with any newly discovered evidence.
2
See Fed R. Crim. P. 33; United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1108–09 (9th Cir.
2013).
AFFIRMED.
3