N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. FAW N PATR IC IA ANN TADIOS, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30231

D.C . No. 4:13-c r-00051-B M M -1
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na B ria n M
. M orris, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 8, 2015 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : M c KEOW

N a nd TALLM AN, C irc uit Judge s a nd GLEASON, ** Distric t Judge
. Fawn Patric ia A nn Ta dios, theform e r C EO of the R oc k y B oy ’ s He a lth B oa rd C linic (the “ C l inic ” ), a fe de ra l ly -funde d he a lth c are fa c ility loc ate d on the C hippe wa C re e ’ s (the “ Tribe ” ) R oc k y B oy R e se rvation in M onta na , a ppe a ls he r 

# F IL ED
MAY18 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The Honora

ble Sharon L. Gle a son, Unite d Stat e s Distric t Judge for the D istric t of Ala ska , sitting by de signa tion.c onvic tion a nd se n te nc e for: (1) one c ount of c onve rsion of fe de ra l funds in viola tion of 18 U.S.C . § 666(a )(1)(A); (2) one c o unt of c onve rsion of se c tion 638 funds in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 1163; a nd (3) one c ount of misa

pplic ation of C linic funds in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . § 669. W e hav e jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. W e a ffirm
. 1 Ta dios first a

rgue s tha t the fe de ra l c ourts la c k jurisdic tion be c a u se Ta dios is
an India n a nd the a c ts took plac e on triba l la nd. W e re vie wc rim i na l jurisdic tion de
novo. Unite d State

s v . Be gay , 42 F.3d 486, 497 (9th C ir. 1994). Ta dios’ s
argum e nt fa ils in light of m ore tha n a c e ntury of jurisprude nc e c o nc luding tha t ge ne ra lly a p plic a ble provisions of the

Fe de ra l C rim ina l C ode gove rn prose c utions of c rim e s c om

m itte d by India n s in India

n te rritory
. Se e

, e .g. , Unite d State

s v . K agama , 118 U.S. 375, 384-85 (1886) (finding tha t fe d e ra l c ourts ha

ve jurisdic tion
ove r c rim e s c om

m itte d by India ns on India

n te rritory ). Ta dios a lso a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt e rre d by a d m itting e vide nc e of he r husba n d’ s c onvic tion for the ft from the Tribe
. W e re vie we v ide ntia ry rulings for
a buse o f disc re tion a

nd will only

re ve rse if “ m ore proba

bly tha n not, thelowe r c ourt’ s e rror ta inte d the ve rdic t .” Te n nison v . C irc us C irc us Ente rs., Inc
. , 244 F.3d

1 W e a ddre ss Ta dios’ s re m a ining a rgum e nt re ga

rding a se nte nc ing e nha nc e m e nt unde r U.S.S.G. § 2B 1.1 in a n opinion file d c onc urre ntly with this disposition. Unite d State s v . Tadios , ___ F.3d ____ (9th C ir. 2016).

2684, 688 (9th C ir. 2001). In thec onte xt of this c a se , the a dm ission of her

husba n d’ s c onvic tion wa s not pre judic ia l and his re side nc e at the fe de ra l pe nite ntia ry wa s re le va

nt to Ta dios’ s a

rgum e nt tha

t she a c t e d in good fa ith, without
an inte nt to c he at the Tribe
. C f. Unite d State

s v . Yazzie , 59 F.3d 807, 811 (9th C ir. 1995) (quoting Unite d State s v . J ohnson , 820 F.2d 1065, 1069 (9th C ir. 1987)) (Evide nc e is unfa irly

pre judic ia l if it “m ak e s a c onvic tion m ore like ly be c a use it provoke s a

n e m o t iona l re sponse in the jury or othe rwise te nds to a ffe c t a dve rse ly the j ury ’ s attitude towa

rd the de fe nda

n t w holly apart from its judgme

n t as to his guilt or innoc e nc eof the

c rimec harge d
. ” ). Eve n if e vide nc e of the c onvic tion should not ha ve be e n a dm itte d, a

ny e rror wa s ha rm le ss. The c ha lle nge d te stim ony wa s c um ulative and offe re d a fte r the jury ha d a lre a d

y he ard sim ila

r inform ation from

othe r sourc e s. Adm issible te s tim ony thus “ ove rsha dowe d” anything thec ha lle nge d te stim ony a dde d. Se e Unite d State

s
v . Ve ra , 770 F.3d 1232, 1240-41 (9th C ir. 2014). Ta dios furthe r c onte nds tha t the re is insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to support her c onvic tion, be c a

use the Tribe c ould, a

n d did, a uthoriz e he r use of c linic funds for priva te trave l. W e re vie w de novo thesuffic ie nc y of the e vide nc e . Unite d State s v . Ruiz , 462 F.3d 1082, 1087-88 (9th C ir. 2006). In light of the e vide n c e tha

t Ta dios
m isre pre se nte d the purpose s of he r trave l to he r supe rvisors a n d fa ile d to se t up 3pa

yroll de duc tions to re im

burse the C linic for c osts a s soc iate d with he r pe rsona l trips, “ the jury

c ould re a s ona

bly disbe lie ve [he r] e xpla

nations” and find he r guilty of the c rim e s c h arge d
. Se eUnite d State s v . Tuc k e r , 641 F.3d 1110, 1119 (9th C ir. 2011). Thus, the

e vide nc e wa s suffic i e nt for a “ ra t iona l trie r of fa c t” to find “ the
e sse ntia l e le m e nts of thec rim e be y ond a re a s ona ble doubt.” Unite d State

s v . Ac osta-Sie rra , 690 F.3d 1111, 1117 (9th C ir. 2012) (quoting J a c k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979)). Ta dios a sse rts tha

t the distric t c o urt e rre d in fa iling to provide the jury with a good-fa ith instruc tion. “ W e re vie w de novo whe the r jury instruc tions a de quate ly
c ove r the de fe nse ’ s the ory of the c a s e .” U

nite d State

s v . Romm , 455 F.3d 990, 1002 (9th C ir. 2006). It is we ll se ttle d “ that a c rim ina l de fe nda

nt ha s ‘ no right’ to any good fa ith instruc tion whe n the jury ha s be e n a d e q

uate ly instruc te d with re ga

rd to the inte nt re q

uire d.” Unite d State

s v . Shipse

y , 363 F.3d 962, 967 (9th C ir. 2004). B e c a

use the distric t c ourt c orre c tly de fine d inte nt, it wa s not re quire d to instruc t the jury on good fa i th, a nd the fa ilure to do so wa s not e rror. Se e id. at 967-68. Ta dios c la im s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in de ny ing he r m otions to dism iss the s e c tion 666(a) c ount, be c a use he r c onduc t

fe ll into se c t ion 666(c )’ s e x c e ption for bona fide c om p e nsation, sinc e she prope rly obta ine d a

pprova ls for he r use of 4C linic funds. The de nia l of a pre tria l m otion to dism iss a n indic t m e nt is subje c t to de novo re vie w. Unite d

State s v . C orte s , 757 F.3d 850, 858 (9th C ir. 2014). Eve n if the Tribe c o u ld a

uthoriz e Ta dios’ s use of triba l funds for pe rsona l tra ve l, whe the r Ta dios in fa c t obta ine d pe rm ission is a

que stion of fa c t for the jury to de c ide
. Se e

, e . g. , Unite d State

s v . W illiams , 507 F.3d 905, 909 (5th C ir. 2007). Fina lly , Ta d i os c onte nds tha t the distric t

c o urt e rre d in a dding se nte nc ing
e nha nc e m e nts for a

buse of trust a

nd obstruc tion of justic e . “ W e re vie wthe distric t
c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of the Se n te nc ing Guide line s de novo a nd its fa c tua l findings for c l e ar e rror.” Unite d

State s v . Tank e , 743 F.3d 1296, 1306 (9th C ir. 2014). Although “ [t] he re is a

n intra c irc uit split a s to whe the r the sta nda rd of re vie wfor
a pplic ation of the Guide l ine s to thefa c ts is denovo or a buse of disc re tion,” we ne e d not re solve that split “ whe re , a s he re , the c hoic e of the sta nda rd doe s not
a ffe c t the outc om e of the c a se .” Id. As the c hie f e xe c utive offic e r of the C linic , Ta dios e n joy e d m ana ge ria l a

uthority . He r supe rvisors on theTriba l C ounc il
se e m e d una

ware tha t she sought a

pprova l for out-of-sta

te trave l for priva

te purpose s . She wa s subje c t to limite d supe rvision a n d ha d substa

ntia l disc re tion
ove r the m atte rs in he r are na . Thus, sheoc c upie d a position of trust, whic

h fa c i lita t e d he r c rim e s. Se e Unite d State s v . Aubre y , 800 F.3d 1115, 1134 (9th C i r. 2015). The distric t c ourt did not err in a dding thea buse of trust e nha

nc e m e nt. 5The obstruc tion of justic e e nha nc e m e nt a

pplie s irre spe c tive of whe the r

“ justic e is a c tua lly

obstruc te d or im

pe de d.” Unite d State

s v . Drape r , 996 F.2d 982, 986 (9th C i r. 1993). The e nha nc e m e nt is wa

rrante d if the c onduc t at issue“ ha s the pote ntia l for obstruc ting” the inve s tiga tion, prose c ution, or se nte nc ing of the insta nt offe nse . S

e e Unite d State

s v . Sullivan , 797 F.3d 623, 642 (9th C ir. 2015) (quota tions omitte d); U.S.S.G. § 3C 1 .1. He re , Ta dios took her trave l file and
re ta ine d it for se ve ra l m onths a fte r m e e t ing with a De pa rtm e nt of He a lth a

n d Hum an Se rvic e s inve stiga tor. This c re ate d the re q

uisitepote ntia l for obstruc ting the i nve stiga

tion, a nd the distric t c o urt did not err in a pply ing the obstruc tion of justic e e nha

nc e m e nt. AFFIRM E D.

6