Here is the opinion in United States v. Harwood (D. N.M.):
DCT Sentencing Order in Harwood
In short, the court disallowed restitution for the costs of Navajo healing ceremonies because they were not “funeral or related services” under the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982.
Here are the materials in United States v. Rainbird (D. N.M.):
Here is the order in United States v. Sandoval County (D. N.M.):
An excerpt:
In enacting § 203 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa—1a, Congress intended that “language minority populations have substantive access to the ballot.” H.R. Rep. No. 655, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. at 5 (1992), reprinted in 1992 U.S.C.C.A.N. 766, 769. In the case of historically unwritten Native American languages, a jurisdiction covered under § 203 “must furnish oral instruction, assistance, or other information relating to registration and voting.” 42 U.S.C. § 1973aa-1a(c). As relevant here, the United States initiated this action against Sandoval County, New Mexico, its Board of County Commissioners, and its County Clerk (collectively “Sandoval County”) in December 1988, alleging a violation of § 203 of the VRA. The action arose from the lack of election practices and procedures in Sandoval County designed to enfranchise Native Americans who speak historically unwritten languages. Presently before the Court is the parties “Joint Motion for and Memorandum in Support of Order Entering Limited Consent Decree.” Doc. #231. Therein, the United States and Sandoval County agree that after two decades the latter has not yet come into sufficient compliance with the VRA. So they once again ask us to extend federal court oversight of this matter in the modified form of a consent decree we originally entered on September 9, 1994. We previously extended that decree, as amended, through additional election cycles on November 5, 2004, November 28, 2007, and March 3, 2009. This time the parties ask us to extend the decree, which most recently expired on April 15, 2011, through another federal election cycle, or until March 15, 2013. Specifically, the parties ask us to authorize the appointment of (1) the county attorney (in the county clerk’s stead) to supervise the county’s Native American Voting Rights Program (NAVRP) and (2) federal election observers to monitor elections at Native American polling places in the county. Doc. #231 at 7, ¶ 18. For reasons we explain, we grant the extension. The parties are forewarned, however, that the time for Sandoval County to come into compliance with the VRA is now. We will grant no further extension of the consent decree in this case absent an extended evidentiary hearing, at which all named Defendants will appear, to determine the precise extent to which Sandoval County has complied with its legal obligations under the VRA. In the absence of substantial compliance, we will further order Sandoval County, or more precisely its duly elected officials, to show cause why they should not be held in contempt of court for failure to abide by our decree and comply with the VRA. See United States v. McKinley Cnty., 941 F. Supp. 1062, 1065 (D.N.M. 1996) (three-judge panel) (per curiam) (“Entry of a consent decree is a discretionary exercise of judicial power punishable by contempt.”).
Here is the order in United States v. Tsosie (D. N.M.):
This is similar to an earlier order in 2010 in United States v. Diaz (D. N.M.). In both cases, Sam Winder, the defense attorney, may note his own status as an Indian and a former AUSA during jury voir dire.
Here is that order in United States v. Tsosie (D. N.M.):
Here are the materials in Pacheco v. Massengill (D. N.M.):
Here is the lengthy opinion in Begay v. Public Service Co. of New Mexico et al. (D. N.M.): Begay DCT Order
An excerpt:
Because the claims against the Federal Defendants are not ripe for review and because the Plaintiffs lack standing to bring this action individually or as a class, the Court will grant the Federal Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Because the Plaintiffs fail to allege a claim upon which relief can be granted under their constructive trust theory, the Court will grant El Paso Corporation’s motion to dismiss pursuant to rule 12(b)(6). Because the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has exclusive jurisdiction over claims involving interstate gas line pipelines, the Court will also grant Transwestern Pipeline Company, LLC’s motion to dismiss regarding ejectment, removal of pipeline and trespass. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint without prejudice.
The case is State of New Mexico ex rel. State Engineer v. Abbott (D. N.M.):
Here are the materials so far in Romero v. Goodrich (D. N.M.), case out of the Pueblo of Nambé:
Nambé Pueblo Motion to Dismiss
Romero v Goodrich Magistrate Report
Apparently, this case was dismissed when the Pueblo of Nambé commuted the sentence of Ronald Romero: Motion to Reconsider — Commuted Sentences
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.