* 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). NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

v. GENTRY CARL LABUFF, Defendant - Appellant. No. 10-30274 D.C. No. 4:10-cr-00023-SEH-1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Sam E. Haddon, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 8, 2011 ** Portland, Oregon Before: FISHER, GOULD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges. Gentry Carl LaBuff (“LaBuff”) appeal s his conviction of one count of robbery/aiding and abetting robbery, inviolation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2111. On appeal, LaBuff contends that there was insufficient evidence to prove that he is 

# FILED
JUL 01 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 an “Indian person” under § 1153. We revi ew the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, United States v. LeVeque , 283 F.3d 1098, 1102 (9th Cir. 2002), and consider whether, “after viewing the evidence in th e light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S .C. § 1291, and we affirm. Under Section 1153, “[a] ‘defendant’s I ndian status is an essential element . . . which the government must allege in the indictment and prove beyond a reasonable doubt.’” United States v. Cruz , 554 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Bruce , 394 F.3d 1215, 1229 (9th Cir. 2005)). To meet its burden, the government must prove both thatthe defendant has a sufficient “degree of Indian blood” and has “tribal or fede ral government recognition as an Indian.” Id. (quoting Bruce , 394 F.3d at 1223–24). The first prong of the test requires “some” Indian blood. Bruce , 394 F.3d at 1223. Thus, “evidence of a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent who is clear ly identified as an Indian is generally sufficient to satisfy this prong.” United States v. Ramirez , 537 F.3d 1075, 1082 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Bruce , 394 F.3d at 1223). Here, LaBuff does not contest that he has a sufficient degree of Indian blood. Thus, we turn to whether the government established that LaBuff was recognized as an Indian.3 In Bruce , we outlined four factors that govern the second prong; those four factors are, “in declining order of im portance . . . 1) tribal enrollment; 2) government recognition formally and informally through receipt of assistance reserved only to Indians; 3) enjoyment of the benefits of tribal affiliation; and 4) social recognition as an Indian through re sidence on a reservation and participation in Indian social life.” Cruz , 554 F.3d at 846 (quoting Bruce , 394 F.3d at 1224). At trial, the government presented the testimony of Helen Butterfly (“Butterfly”), a health records lab technici an at the Blackfeet Community Hospital. Butterfly testified that on the basis of LaBuff’s classification as an Indian descendant of a tribal member, he was elig ible to receive health care services at the hospital, which is operated by the fede ral government and whose non-emergency services are limited to enrolled tribal members and other non-member Indians. Butterfly further testified that since May 1979, LaBuff received healthcare services from the Blackfeet Commun ity Hospital. Because th e evidence showed that LaBuff repeatedly accessed healthcare serv ices “reserved only to Indians,” we conclude that the government sufficiently established the second Bruce factor. Similarly, we conclude that becauseLaBuff frequently received healthcare services on the basis of his descendent st atus of an enrolled member, he enjoyed the “benefits” of his tribal affiliation, as required by Bruce’s third factor.4 In addition to establishing the second and third Bruce factors, the government also presented evidence th at on multiple occasions, LaBuff was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted under th e jurisdiction of the tribal courts. As we observed in Bruce , the assumption and exercise of tribal criminal jurisdiction is strong evidence of tribal recognition. 394 F.3d at 1227. At the time he was prosecuted, LaBuff did not challenge the authority of tribal authorities to arrest him or the exercise of tribal criminal jurisd iction. Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government , we conclude that, contrary to LaBuff’s contention, the evidence was sufficient fo r any rational fact-finder to have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he is an “Indian person.” AFFIRMED.