Ugh.
Here is the blog post. News coverage here.
Here are the indictments:
Here are the materials in United States v. Big Eagle:
Here are the available materials in United States v. Bryant:
Here is a description of the crime:
On June 20, 2010, Ms. Bryant played a $1 slot machine at the Choctaw Casino and Resort, an Indian gaming establishment. She won 90 cents and took the ticket to her sister, who worked as a cashier. Her sister, and later codefendant, paid Ms. Bryant $4,000.91. They later split the proceeds. R. 1, 26. The casino noticed the missing $4,000 and saw the transaction as recorded by cameras. On appeal, Ms. Bryant contends that no federal law was violated. Her two-step argument is as follows: the statute upon which she was charged, 18 U.S.C. § 1168, prohibits theft by “an officer, employee, or individual licensee of a gaming establishment operated by or for or licensed by an Indian tribe.” But
she was not a casino employee, which, for purposes of this appeal, we take as true.
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Blind. And here is the related unpublished opinion in United States v. Sankey.
An excerpt:
William Blind appeals his conviction of eight counts of embezzlement and theft from an Indian tribal organization in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1163 and his resulting sentence. He argues there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions and that the district court erred in calculating the amount of loss for the purposes of sentencing, including restitution. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court AFFIRMS the judgment of conviction and AFFIRMS the sentence except as to restitution. The order of restitution is REVERSED and the matter is REMANDED for resentencing only as to restitution.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Newell.
Here is an excerpt:
This case stems from extensive financial mismanagement at the Passamaquoddy Tribe Indian Township Reservation (the “Tribe”) in Down East Maine. Defendants Robert Newell, the former governor of the Tribe, and James Parisi, Jr., the Tribe’s former finance director, were convicted for conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371, as well as violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 287, 666 and 669, involving the misuse of federal grant and tribal monies. On appeal, Newell and Parisi raise a host of issues related to the federal court’s jurisdiction over “internal tribal matters,” the sufficiency of the evidence, the lower court’s jury instructions, sentencing, and the restitution order entered against them. For the reasons explained below, we vacate Parisi’s conviction on count five and remand for clarification of certain issues related to the restitution order, but otherwise affirm.
Here is the opinion in United States v. Mees: US v Mees CA8 Opinion.
An excerpt:
Ladarana Mees pleaded guilty to theft concerning programs receiving federal funds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(A), and was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 120 months’ imprisonment. Mees appeals his sentence, asserting that the district court committed procedural error when it departed upwards from the advisory U.S. Sentencing Guidelines range and when it considered ethnicity and other improper factors during sentencing. Mees also argues that the sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm.
Here is the order in United States v. Jeff Livingston (E.D. Cal.): DCT Order Denying Livingston Motion to Dismiss.
Here is the indictment.
Here is the unpublished opinion in United States v. Saupitty.
An excerpt:
While serving as the Tax Commissioner of the Apache Tribe of Oklahoma (the “Tribe”), Ms. Saupitty diverted tribal tax revenues to a bank account she established without the Tribe’s knowledge and that she solely controlled. Over a two-year period, she withdrew all of the Tribe’s funds from that account–more than $100,000–which she used to pay for her personal expenses, among other things. She was sentenced to twenty-seven months’ imprisonment, followed by two years of supervised release, restitution of $107,627.65, and 104 hours ofcommunity service.
Here is the order in United States v. Livingston (E.D. Cal.): DCT Order Denying Livingston Motion to Dismiss.
And we posted the indictment for theft from a tribal organization here.
You must be logged in to post a comment.