United States v. Charles Spotted Wolf

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 22 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 17-30062
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:16-cr-00064-BMM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
CHARLES SPOTTED WOLF,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Montana
Brian M. Morris, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 18, 2017**
Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Charles Spotted Wolf appeals the denial of his motion for a judgment of
acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29. We have jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a motion for a
*
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).
judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence. See United States v. Atalig,
502 F.3d 1063, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.
Spotted Wolf contends that there was insufficient evidence to support his
burglary conviction under the Major Crimes Act (“MCA”) because the
government’s case relied almost solely on the testimony of his co-defendant,
Ashley Solheim. He argues that, under Montana law, a conviction cannot rest
solely on the testimony of an accomplice. Spotted Wolf’s reliance on state law is
misplaced. See United States v. Pluff, 253 F.3d 490, 494 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he
MCA’s incorporation of state law in defining and punishing crimes is limited to the
applicable elements and sentencing schemes, and does not include all aspects of
state law.”). Under federal law, a conviction “may be based on the uncorroborated
testimony of an accomplice, if the testimony is not incredible or unsubstantial on
its face.” Darden v. United States, 405 F.2d 1054, 1056 (9th Cir. 1969) (internal
quotations omitted). Solheim’s testimony as to Spotted Wolf’s involvement in the
burglary was neither incredible nor unsubstantial. Moreover, it was supported by
the testimony of two other witnesses. The evidence was adequate to allow a
rational trier of fact to find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
See United States v. Nevils, 598 F.3d 1158, 1163-64 (9th Cir. 2010) (en banc).
AFFIRMED.
2 17-30062