T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A,

P l ai nt i ff - A pp el l ee , v . R ON NI E L YN N S MI T H,

D e f e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 09- 35127 D. C. No s . 4 : 0 8 - c v - 0 0 0 2 9 - SE H

4: 03 -c r- 00 14 5-S E H -1 ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe D i s tr i c tof

M ont a na S a m E . H a ddon, D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d J une 9, 2011

P or t l a nd, O r e gon B efo re: F IS H E R , G O U L D an d P A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R o n n ie L y n n S m ith ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to v a c a te , s e t a s id e o rc o rr e c t h is s e n te n c e u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . W e a f f irm . 1. I ndi a n s t a tus . S m i th w a s c onvi c t e d of a s s a ul tw i th ada nge r ous w e apon i n vi ol a t i on of

18 U . S . C . §§ 113( a ) ( 3) a nd 1153 f orthe s t abbi ng of

L e e H a rr i s on T u ttle , a n I n d ia n p e r s o n . T o c o n v ic t S m ith u n d e r§ 1 1 5 3 , th e ju ry w a s r e q u ir e d to 

# FI LED JU L 08 2011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSW e r e je c t th e g o v e rn m e n t’s a r g u m e n t th a t T e ague v . L ane , 489 U . S . 288 1 ( 1989) , pr e c l ude s us f

r om appl y i ng B ruce , Cr uza nd M aggi , w hi ch w er e dec i ded a f te rS m ith ’s tr ia l. T

eagu e bars the re troac t i ve appl i ca t i on of new procedural rul es u n d e rc e r ta in c ir c u m s ta n c e s . See 48 9 U . S . at31 0. Itdo es no tappl y t o n ew s u b s ta n tiv e ru le s , in c lu d in g “d e c is io n s th a t n a rr o w th e s c o p e o f ac r im in a l s ta tu te by i nt erpret i ng i t s t erm s. ” Sc h r ir o v . Su m m e r lin , 5 4 2 U .S . 3 4 8 , 3 5 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) . B ec ause B ruce , Cr uza nd M aggii nt e rpr e tthe s ubs t a nt i ve s c ope of § 1153, the T e ague b a ris in ap p lic ab le . 2 f in d b e y o n d ar e a s o n ab le d o u b t th a t S m ith w a s a n I n d ia n . See 18 U . S . C . § 1 15 3(a) (s ubj ec t i ng “ [a ] ny Indi an” w ho com m i t s one of 14 m aj or cr i m es t o the cr i m i nal la w s a n d p e n a ltie s ap p lic ab le in a r e a s o f e x c lu s iv e f

e d e r a l ju r is d ic tio n ) . S m ith ar gu es un der U

ni ted Stat es v. B ruce , 3 9 4 F .3 d 1 2 1 5 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ) , U ni ted Stat es v . Cr uz , 554 F . 3d 840 ( 9th C i r . 2009) , a nd U ni te d State s v . M

aggi , 598 F . 3d 1073 (9th C i r. 20 10 ), thatthe go vernm entpres ent ed i nsuffi ci entevi dence of hi s I nd i an s ta tu s . W e d is a g r e e .

1

“ T he ge ne r a l l y a c c e pt e d t e s tf orI ndi a n s t a tus c ons i de r s ‘ ( 1) the de gr e e of Indi an bl oo d; and (2) tri bal or go vernm entre cogn i t i on as an Indi an. ’ ” B ruce , 394 F . 3d a t1223 ( quot i ng U ni ted Stat es v. Keys , 1 0 3 F .3 d 7 5 8 , 7 6 1 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) ) .

“ [ F ] ourf a c t or s . . . gove rn the s e c ond pr ong; thos e f ourf a c t or s a r e , ‘ i n de c l i ni ng or de rof i m por t a nc e , e vi de nc e of the f ol l ow i ng: 1) tr i ba l e nr ol l m e nt ; 2) gove rnm e nt r e c o g n itio n f

o rm a lly a n d in f

o rm a lly th r o u g h r e c e ip t o f a s s is ta n c e r e s e rv e d o n ly to I ndi a ns ; 3) e nj oy m e ntof the be ne f

i t s of tr i ba l a f f i l i a t i on; a nd 4) s oc i a l r e c ogni t i on3

as an Indi an throu gh re si dence on a res ervat i on and p art i ci pat i on i n Ind i an soci al l i fe . ’ ” Cr uz , 554 F . 3d a t846 ( quot i ng B ruce , 3 9 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 4 ) . T h e g o v e rn m e n t p r e s e n te d s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e o f

S m ith ’s I n d ia n b lo o d to sat i sfy B ruce ’ s f

i rs tpron g. W e have hel d thi s r equi re m entsa t i sf i ed by as l i tt l e a s 1 /8 ( 1 2 .5 % ) I n d ia n b lo o d . Se e M aggi , 5 9 8 F .3 d a t 1 0 8 0 ; B ruce , 3 9 4 F .3 d a t 1 2 2 3 . H e r e , the gove rnm e ntpr e s e nt e d e vi de nc e tha tS m i th ha s 25/ 128 ( 19. 5% ) A s s i ni boi ne a nd S i oux bl ood, w e l l i n e xc e s s of the 1/ 8 w e appr ove d i n B ruce a nd M aggi . W e a c know l e dge tha tS m i th’ s § 2255 m ot i on a tt a c he d al e tt e rf r om the F ortP ec k T ri bes E nrol l m entO ff i ce st at i ng thatS m i th “ do es no tm ee tthe re qu i re d b lo o d q u a n tu m o f

1 /8 f o rA s s o c ia te M e m b e r s h ip [ in th e F o r t P e c k tr ib e s ], n o r1 /4 F ul l E nrol l m ent . ” B utthi s e vi dence w as no tpres ent ed attri al , and even i f i thad been, a r at i on al tri erof fa ctcoul d h ave c ho se n t o cre di tthe m ore s peci fi c, hi gh er f ig u r e e s tab lis h e d b y th e g o v e rn m e n t’s e v id e n c e . T he gove rnm e nta l s o pr e s e nt e d s uf f i c i e nte vi de nc e of

tr i ba l orgove rnm e nt reco g n i t i o n o f S m i th as an In d i an t o sat i sfy B ruce ’ s s ec on d p rong . T here w as ev i d en ce th atS m i th ato n e t i m e en j o yed fo rm al tri b al en ro l l m en t , th e m o st im p o r ta n t in d ic a to ro f

tr ib a l r e c o g n itio n o f

ad e f e n d a n t’s I n d ia n s ta tu s . Se e Cr uz , 554 F . 3d a t846. A s e a r l y a s 1990, S m i th w a s e nr ol l e d a s a n a s s oc i a t e m e m be rof the A s s i ni boi ne a nd S i oux tr i be s , as t a tus a va i l abl e t o pe r s ons of “ one - e i ghth ( 1/ 8)4

o rm o r e b u t le s s th a n o n e - q u a r te r( 1 /4 ) , A s s in ib o in e a n d /o rS io u x b lo o d b o rn to any m em ber of the A ss i ni bo i ne and S i ou x T ri bes. ” S i oux & A s s i ni boi ne O r d. N o. 1, § 1( e ) . A l though Cru z a nd M aggihel d that“ desc endantst atus” i n the B l ac kfee t tri be, avai l abl e t o the chi l dren of form al l y e nrol l ed B l ac kfee tm em bers , w as in s u f f ic ie n t to s h o w tr ib a l e n r o llm e n t, s e e Cr uz , 5 5 4 F .3 d a t 8 4 7 ; M aggi , 598 F . 3d at10 82 , S m i th’ s m em bers hi p i n the S i ou x and A ss i ni bo i ne tri bes w as m ore f orm al tha n C ruz a nd M a ggi ’ s de s c e nda nts t a tus . S m i th w a s a c tua l l y e nr ol l e d a s atr i be m em ber by vi rtue of hi s ow n q uantum of Indi an bl oo d. H e w as no ta m er e d e s c e n d a n t e lig ib le f

o rtr ib a l a f

f ilia tio n b y v ir tu e o f

ap a r e n t’s e n r o llm e n t a lo n e . C om pa re B l ac kfee tC on st . art . II , am . II I. , § 1 (s peci fy i ng thati nd i vi du al s born a f t e r1962 m us tha ve 1/ 4 B l a c kf e e tbl ood t o be e nr ol l e d a s m e m be r s , w i thout p r o v is io n f

o ra n y “d e s c e n d a n t” m e m b e r s h ip ) , w i th S i oux & A s s i ni boi ne O r d. N o. 1, § 1 (d) & (e ) ( prov i di ng that“ [e ] ac h chi l d o f one-f ou rth (1/ 4) or m ore A s s i ni boi ne a nd/ orS i oux bl ood born a f t e r[ O c t obe r1, 1960] t o a ny m e m be rof the A s s in ib o in e a n d S io u x T r ib e s ” q u a lif ie s f o rf u ll m e m b e r s h ip , a n d th a t “[ e ]a c h c h ild of one - e i ghth ( 1/ 8) orm or e butl e s s tha n one - qua r t e r( 1/ 4) , A s s i ni boi ne a nd/ or S i oux bl ood born t o a ny m e m be rof the A s s i ni boi ne a nd S i oux T r i be s ” qua l i f i e s f or a s s o c ia te m e m b e r s h ip ) .5

W e r e c o g n iz e th a t S m ith r e lin q u is h e d h is tr ib a l e n r o llm e n t in 1 9 9 6 . T h is d e c is io n d o e s n o t d e f

in itiv e ly s h o w , h o w e v e r , th a t S m ith o rth e tr ib e c e a s e d to c o n s id e rS m ith a n I n d ia n p e r s o n . Se e Cr uz , 5 5 4 F .3 d a t 8 5 0 ( h o ld in g th a t B ruce r e q u ir e s a n a n a ly s is o f

I n d ia n s ta tu s f

r o m th e p e r s p e c tiv e o f

th e in d iv id u a l a s w e ll as fr om the pers pect i ve of the tri be). A tri bal i nv es t i gat or, T om A tki nson , t es t i fi ed he ha d know n S m i th f

orm os tof

hi s l i f e , tha tS m i th ha d l i ve d on the r e s e rva t i on thatent i re t i m e a nd that , as fa r a s A tki nson kn ew , S m i th h el d h i m se l f outt o b e a n Indi an pers on . A ra t i on al j ury c ou l d h ave c on cl ud ed thatbecause S m i th w as on ce form al l y e nrol l ed i n the tri be and con t i nu ed t o h ol d h i m se l f outas an Indi an even af t erhi s e nrol l m entended, bo th S m i th and the tri be cont i nu ed t o v i ew S m i th as a n I n d ia n d e s p ite h is u n e x p la in e d d e c is io n to r e lin q u is h h is f o rm a l e n r o lle d s ta tu s . W e the r e f

or e c onc l ude the r e w a s no de f i c i e nc y of

pr oof on the I ndi a n s t a tus e le m e n t. 2. C ou nsel ’ s f

ai l ure t o d i sput e S m i th’ s I nd i an st atus. S m i th con t ends tri al c o u n s e l a n d ap p e lla te c o u n s e l p r o v id e d in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e b y f

a ilin g to c h a lle n g e th e s u f

f ic ie n c y o f

th e e v id e n c e th a t h e is a n I n d ia n . W e d is a g r e e . S m ith w as tri ed before B ruce , Cr uza nd M a g g i w er e dec i ded, and p re - B ruce a u th o r ity ga ve c ouns e l l i tt l e i ndi c a t i on tha tac ha l l e nge t o the e vi de nc e of I ndi a n s t a tus m i ght p r o v e s u c c e s s f

u l. See Keys , 103 F . 3d a t761 ( a f f i rm i ng a n I ndi a n s t a tus f i ndi ng6

w i tho utext ensi ve di sc ussi on ). C ou nsel ’ s f ai l ure t o rai se a l egal ar gu m entthat la c k e d o b v io u s m e r it d id n o t c o n s titu te in e f f e c tiv e a s s is ta n c e . See U ni ted Stat es v. R at i gan , 35 1 F . 3d 95 7, 96 5 (9th C i r. 20 03 ) ( ho l di ng thatthe “ fa i l ure t o rec og ni ze every possi bl e l egal ar gu m ent ” di d n otre nd ercoun se l ’ s per form ance c o n s titu tio n a lly d e f

ic ie n t) . 3. C ou nsel ’ s f

ai l ure t o requesta c l ar i fy i ng j ury i nstruct i on . S m i th argues tr i a l c ouns e l r e nde r e d i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t a nc e by f

a i l i ng t o r e que s taj ury i ns truc t i on c l a r i f y i ng the de f

i ni t i on of the t e rm “ I ndi a n. ” H e a r gue s tha tthe j ury s houl d ha ve be e n i ns truc t e d t o appl y the s t a nda r d s e tf or th i n B ruce a nd Cr uz , i nc l udi ng the ba s i c tw o- pr ong I ndi a n s t a tus t e s ta nd the f ours ubf a c t or s us e d t o e va l ua t e the s e c ond pr ong. B utw e de c l i ne t o f a ul tc ouns e l f

ornotpr opos i ng j ury i ns truc t i ons w h o s e c o n te n t w a s n o t d e v e lo p e d u n til w e ll a f te rtr ia l. See Stri cklan d v. W as hi ngton , 46 6 U . S . 66 8, 69 0 (19 84 ) ( “ [A ] courtdeci di ng an ac tual i neff ec t i veness cl ai m m ustj ud ge the re as on abl enes s of c ou nsel ’ s c hal l enged co n d u ct o n th e f

ac ts o f th e p ar ti cu lar c as e, v iew ed as o f th e tim e o f c o u n se l’ s c onduc t . ” ) . A l though i tm i ghtha ve be e n pr e f e r abl e t o pr ovi de the j ury w i th a c l a r i f y i ng i ns truc t i on on the m e a ni ng of the t e rm “ I ndi a n” – e s pe c i a l l y i n l i ghtof the j ury not e e xpr e s s i ng c onf us i on a s t o the s i gni f

i c a nc e of S m i th’ s r e l i nqui s hm e nt of tr i ba l e nr ol l m e nt– the r e w a s l i tt l e us e f ul c l a r i f i c a t i on tha tc ouns e l , ope r a t i ng7

pre- B ruce , coul d h ave propo se d. W e there fore concl ud e c ou nsel perf orm ed a d e q u a te ly . 4. V oi r di re st at em ent . In qu es t i on i ng prospect i ve j urors duri ng vo i r di re , th e d is tr ic t c o u r t s ta te d : I w a ntt o f

ol l ow up on thi s t opi c tha tI a ddr e s s ed i n i t i al l y w i th y ou c o n c e rn in g e th n ic b a c k g r o u n d o f p e r s o n s a n d o th e rto p ic s o f th a t s o r t. T he de f e ndant i n this c as e is i n f

ac t a N at i v e A m e r i c an . A very s ubs t a nt i a l num be r of the pe r s ons w hos e [ s i c ] appe a ra nd gi ve t e s t i m ony atthi s tri al m ay be N at i ve A m er i ca ns as w el l . . . . D o any of you feel that you h ave s uch strong vi ew s on the subj ec tof ethn i c bac kg roun d o r tri bal a f f i l i a t i on orm a tt e r s of

tha ts or t t h aty ou c oul d nots e rve a s af a i ra nd i mp a r t i a l j u r o ri n th i s c a s e ? ( E m p h a s is a d d e d .) S m i th c ont e nds the c our t ’ s r e m a rk tha the w a s aN a t i ve A m e r i c a n “ ha d the ef fe ctof re l i evi ng the go vernm entof i t s burden o f provi ng . . . thatS m i th i s a n I ndi a n. ” W e di s a gr e e . G i ve n the c ont e xtof the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s s t a t e m e nt , the p r o s p e c tiv e ju r o r s lik e ly u n d e r s to o d th e c o u r t’s r e m a rk a s p a r t o f a n in q u iry in to pot e nt i a l pr e

j udi c e , nota s ac om m e nton f or thc om i ng e vi de nc e . M or e ove r , a tthe cl ose of tri al , the courti nstruct ed the j ury nott o “ re ad i nt o . . . anythi ng the court m ayhave sa i d o r don e a ny sugg es t i on as t o w hatverdi ctyou sho ul d return. ” A l tho ug h thi s i nstruct i on w as ra ther genera l , i tw as suff i ci entt o cure any pot ent i al m is im p r e s s io n a r is in g f r o m th e c o u r t’s c o m m e n t. Se e U n ite d S ta te s v . Mc G ill , 6048

F .2 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 5 5 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 7 9 ) ( h o ld in g th a t aju d g e ’s c o m m e n t o n th e is s u e s in th e c a s e , a lth o u g h “n o t te c h n ic a lly c o rr e c t,” c o u ld b e c u r e d b y in s tru c tio n ) . A F F I R M E D .