The HONORABLE DAVID S. DOTY, United States District Judge for the

1

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-1831

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

William Andrew Clark, * District of Minnesota. 

 *

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

 Submitted: September 8, 1998

 Filed: September 11, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this direct criminal appeal, William Andrew Clark challenges federal

jurisdiction over the offense to which he pleaded guilty. Clark, an Indian, pleading

guilty to one count of aggravated sexual abuse by force or threat in violation of 18

U.S.C. § 2241(a)(1), admitted using force to engage in sexual intercourse with another

Indian at his home on the Red Lake Reservation in Minnesota. The district court1

sentenced him to 109 months imprisonment and five years supervised release. 
-2-

Jurisdiction was premised on 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a), which provides that “[a]ny Indian

who commits against the person or property of another Indian or other person” certain

offenses--including aggravated sexual abuse--“within the Indian country, shall be

subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing any of the above

offenses, within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.” 

On appeal Clark argues only that the district court lacked jurisdiction because

the site of the offense is not a “reservation” and, therefore, is not “Indian country”

within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1151 (defining Indian country with reference to

Indian reservations, dependent Indian communities, and Indian allotments). He argues

that the United States never obtained jurisdiction over this land, because the Indians

“have always been recognized and regarded as the sole owners by right of original

Indian occupancy, the lands having never been ceded to the United States.” Chippewa

Indians of Minnesota v. United States, 301 U.S. 358, 366 (1937). 

After de novo review of the record and the parties& briefs, we conclude Clark

committed the offense in Indian country. See United States v. Thunder Hawk, 127

F.3d 705, 706 (8th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). Although the Red Lake

Reservation, as it exists today, has never been ceded to the United States and is the

remainder of the aboriginal territory of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, it is

Indian country. See United States v. White, 508 F.2d 453, 456-59 & nn.3-5 (8th Cir.

1974) (even without formal act or cession, effect of “reserved” land was creation of

Red Lake Reservation); cf. Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 388-90 (1902)

(advising that, if it were necessary to decide, Red Lake would be reservation; United

States held fee of Red Lake land subject only to Indian-held right of occupancy);

United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336, 338-39 (8th Cir. 1986) (finding other land held

by United States in trust for Indians was Indian country for purposes of § 1151; actions

of federal government in its treatment of Indian land can create de facto reservation

even where reservation was not created by specific treaty, statute, or executive order).
-3-

Therefore, the district court had jurisdiction to convict and sentence Clark for this

offense committed “within the Indian country.” 

Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.