Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03447/USCOURTS-ca8-05-03447-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rinissa Fitzpatrick
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 05-3446

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Marcia Brave Thunder, *

also known as Marcia Bailey, *

* Appeals from the United States

Defendant - Appellant. * District Court for the District of

* North Dakota. 

___________ *

 

No. 05-3447

___________

United States of America, *

* 

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Rinissa Fitzpatrick, *

* 

Defendant - Appellant *

___________

Submitted: April 19, 2006

Filed: April 24, 2006

___________

Appellate Case: 05-3447 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036342
1

The Honorable Daniel L. Hovland, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of North Dakota. 

-2-

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

___________

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. 

A jury convicted Marcia Brave Thunder, a/k/a Marcia Bailey, and Rinissa

Fitzpatrick of theft from an Indian tribal organization, conspiracy to commit an

offense against the United States, and making false statements to the Federal Bureau

of Investigation (FBI). The district court1

 sentenced Brave Thunder to 15 months and

Fitzpatrick to 21 months and ordered restitution from both. Brave Thunder and

Fitzpatrick appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and their sentences.

We affirm. 

A federal grand jury indicted Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick on one count of

theft from the Long Soldier District of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1163 and 2, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States

by stealing and misapplying funds belonging to the Tribe, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 371, and making false statements to the FBI about tribal consultant agreements and

their own consultant status, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. 

At trial the government introduced evidence that Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick

held several elected positions in the Long Soldier District of the Standing Rock Sioux

Tribe. During the time period relevant to these appeals, Fitzpatrick, who had been

elected secretary for the District, served as interim treasurer because the elected

treasurer had resigned. Brave Thunder served as a member of the Business

Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission. 

Appellate Case: 05-3447 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036342
-3-

 When Cheryl Penny was appointed treasurer in May 2003, she sought to obtain

the District's financial records from Fitzpatrick but learned that the records had been

delivered by Fitzpatrick and Brave Thunder's mother to a certified public accountant,

Paul East, for a review ordered by the District. After an investigation was initiated

against District officers, the records were turned over to FBI Special Agent Hal

Stutsman who reviewed them with Penny. Stutsman and Penny discovered a number

of consultant agreements which had been executed in 2002 authorizing payment by

the District of thousands of dollars to Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick. They also found

files containing consultant offer letters for Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick, consultant

agreements, returned checks, and worksheets tracking the consultant payments. Tribal

law prohibited elected officials from entering into contracts with the District, and

consulting agreements needed approval from the District Council and the Tribal

Council. None of the consulting agreements had gotten such approval. 

Stutsman created a summary of the checks issued pursuant to the consulting

agreements to Fitzpatrick and Brave Thunder between September 1, 2002 and March

31, 2003, showing payments of $71,000 to Fitzpatrick and $40,100 to Brave Thunder.

Stutsman tracked $32,100 of the consulting money paid to Fitzpatrick and $23,900 of

that paid to Brave Thunder to their respective bank accounts. Stutsman noted

discrepancies between the District Planning Commission minutes which had been

delivered to Paul East and the official versions filed with the Tribal Council. Only the

unofficial minutes contained motions for the approval of consultant agreements for

Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick; the Planning Commission members shown as having

made the motions denied it. 

When Stutsman confronted Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick, Brave Thunder said

she had not signed a consultant agreement and did not recall being paid pursuant to

one. Fitzpatrick said she had not been hired as a consultant and claimed not to have

seen any consultant agreements. Stutsman had exemplars of the handwriting of Brave

Thunder and Fitzpatrick reviewed by a trained handwriting examiner. The examiner

Appellate Case: 05-3447 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036342
-4-

opined that it was "highly probable" that Brave Thunder's signatures on the consultant

agreement and the exemplars were authored by the same person and stated without

reservation that the Fitzpatrick signatures on the agreement and the exemplars had

been written by the same individual. 

The jury convicted Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick on all three counts. At

sentencing the district court imposed two level enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3

for both defendants based on their abuse of positions of trust. The court noted that

Fitzpatrick was an elected official who had served as a member of the Board and

Planning Commission, had authority to sign checks, and had signed both the checks

and consulting agreements at issue. It also observed that Brave Thunder was a

member of the Business Committee, bore responsibility for planning and

recommending approval of expenditure of funds, and executed the false consulting

agreements. The court also found that an 8 level increase to Fitzpatrick's offense level

was warranted under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(1)(E) because the loss from her offenses

exceeded $70,000. The court sentenced Fitzpatrick to 21 months and $72,000

restitution and Brave Thunder to 15 months and $40,100 restitution. On appeal both

challenge their sentencing enhancements as well as the sufficiency of the evidence

underlying their convictions. 

A guilty verdict will only be overturned if no reasonable jury could have found

the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Gjerde, 110 F.3d

595, 599 (8th Cir. 1997). Brave Thunder alleges that there was insufficient evidence

that she deposited consultant funds from the District and argues that she did not

violate 18 U.S.C. § 1163 because she did not have access to funds or supervisory

authority over them. Fitzpatrick alleges that there was insufficient evidence for her

theft conviction because the government only demonstrated bad recordkeeping rather

than proving that the disbursed money had been stolen or misapplied. The

government introduced a large amount of evidence of signed consulting agreements,

consulting payments, falsified meeting minutes, and handwriting analysis, which

Appellate Case: 05-3447 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036342
-5-

provided an adequate basis for the jury findings that Fitzpatrick and Brave Thunder

were guilty of theft. Fitzpatrick and Brave Thunder's alternative interpretations of the

evidence – asserting, for example, that others could have altered the documents and

that there was no proof that Brave Thunder deposited money from consulting

agreements – cannot overcome the factual findings reached by the jury. 

Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick both allege that their conspiracy convictions

cannot stand because there was no evidence that there was a conspiracy involving the

United States. This argument is based on a misreading of the statute and of the

indictment: 18 U.S.C. § 371 prohibits not only a conspiracy to defraud the United

States, but also a conspiracy to commit any offense against the United States. See 18

U.S.C. § 371. Since the indictment charged the latter – a conspiracy to violate 18

U.S.C. § 1163 – the government was only required to introduce evidence of a

conspiracy to commit theft. 

Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick also challenge their convictions for making false

statements about the consultant arrangements. Brave Thunder alleges that the

government did not prove that her statements about not recalling the consultant

agreements or not having been paid as a consultant were false, especially since the

agreements had not been approved by the necessary parties. Fitzpatrick claims that

if she had said she was hired as a consultant, the statement would have incriminated

her and would have been false. She also alleges that there was no proof that she did

remember any agreement at the time of her interview. None of these arguments has

merit. Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick were paid for consultant work, the jury could

infer they had seen the consultant agreements because they signed them, and there is

no constitutional right to provide a false answer. See Brogan v. United States, 522

U.S. 398 (1998) ("invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege...allows a witness to

remain silent, but not to swear falsely") (internal quotation omitted). 

 

Appellate Case: 05-3447 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036342
-6-

Finally, Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick challenge the district court's sentencing

enhancements for abuse of positions of trust and Fitzpatrick appeals the increase in

her offense level based on the amount of loss. We review the district court's

interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines do novo and its factual

findings for clear error. United States v. Jourdain, 433 F.3d 652, 658 (8th Cir. 2006).

Brave Thunder alleges that she had no discretionary authority so her situation did not

fit within the guideline commentary description of a position of trust. See U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.3, comment, n.1. Fitzpatrick claims that the district court erred by making

findings about the amount of loss and her abuse of a position of trust because these

issues should have been for the jury and that she was no more culpable than Brave

Thunder and a codefendant who had been acquitted. Under United States v. Booker,

543 U.S. 220 (2005), judicial factfinding is permissible at sentencing so long as the

district court understands that the sentencing guidelines are advisory only. See United

States v. Morell, 429 F.3d 1161, 1164 (8th Cir. 2005). After studying the record, we

conclude that the district court thoroughly discussed the factors that marked Brave

Thunder and Fitzpatrick as holding positions of trust and did not err by imposing

enhancements or increasing Fitzpatrick's offense level based on the amount of loss.

 Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the district court. 

___________________

Appellate Case: 05-3447 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/24/2006 Entry ID: 2036342