Here:
2017-10-05 Herrera Cert Petition
Question presented:
Whether Wyoming’s admission to the Union or the establishment of the Bighorn National Forest abrogated the Crow Tribe of Indians’ 1868 federal treaty right to hunt on the “unoccupied lands of the United States,” thereby permitting the present-day criminal conviction of a Crow member who engaged in subsistence hunting for his family.
Here are the materials in Toya v. Toledo (D.N.M.):
19 DCT Order Adopting Magistrate Report
Prior post here.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Verwiebe.
Here are the materials in United States v. Long:
An excerpt from the dissent:
A misdemeanant like Michael Long is forbidden to possess a firearm only if he was “represented by counsel in the case” in which he sustained the misdemeanor conviction, or if he “waived the right to counsel in the case.” 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(i)(I). It is undisputed that Long did not waive the right to counsel and that he was not represented by a lawyer in the case. The court concludes, however, that because Long was represented in the case by a nonlawyer, dubbed a “lay counsel” by the Rosebud Sioux Tribe, he was “represented by counsel in the case.” I believe that this conclusion is inconsistent with the meaning of the word “counsel” in the statute, so I would reverse Long’s conviction for possession of a firearm as a prohibited person.
Here is the complaint in Kialegee Tribal Town v. Dellinger (N.D. Okla.):
Here.
An excerpt:
Tamera Begay, a Navajo woman, has studied the Mitchell case and agrees the tribe should steer clear of the death penalty. “There’s so much federal jurisdiction, that’s worrisome,” she said.
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Bearcomesout.
Here are the materials so far in Smith v. United States (D. Ariz.):
Here is the order in Talk v. Southern Ute Detention Center (D.N.M.):
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.