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. PM B , JUVENILE M ALE, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 11-10405

D.C . No. 3:11-c r-08009-JAJ-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 Ariz ona John A. Ja

rve y , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 11, 2012 * * San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia

B e fore : WALLAC E, THOM AS and B ER Z O N, C irc uit Judge s. PM B , a juve n i le de fe n da

nt, a ppe a l s from

his judgme nt of c onvic tion for two
c ounts of a ggravate d se xua l a buse , in viola

tion of 18 U.S.C . §§ 1153, 2241(a ), 

# FIL ED SEP 06 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, 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 pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).2246(2)(A), a nd 5031–37. B e c a

use the pa rtie s a re fam ilia r with thefa c tua l history of this c a se , we ne e d not re c ount it here . W e re ve rse PM B ’ s c onvic t ion a nd
re m and for furthe r proc e e dings. To e sta blish a de fe nda nt’ s le ga l sta

tus a s a n India n unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1153, the g ove rnm e nt m

u st prove (1) tha

t the de fe nda

nt ha s “ s om e qua

ntum of India n blood, whe the r or not tha t blood de rive s from

a m e m be r of a fe de ra lly re c ogniz e d tribe , a nd” (2) tha

t the de fe nda

nt ha s “ m e m

be rship in, or a ffilia

tion with, a fe de ra lly re c ogniz e d tribe .” Unite d State s v . Ze pe da , 792 F.3d 1103, 1113 (9th C ir. 2015) (e n ba

nc ), c e r t. de nie d , 136 S. C t. 1712 (2016). “ [T] he de fe n da nt’ s India n sta tus is a n e sse ntia l e le m e nt whic h the gove rnm e nt m

ust a lle ge in the indic tm e nt
and prove be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt.” Id. at 1110 (quoting Unite d State s v . Bruc e , 394 F.3d 1215, 1229 (9th C ir. 2005)) (quota tion m arks a

n d a lte ration
om i tte d). During tria l, a

n FB I spe c ia l a ge nt te stifie d tha t a doc um e nt pre s e nte d by

the gove rnm e nt wa s a

c e rtific ate of triba l e nrollm e nt purporting to show tha t PM B ha d
som e qua ntum of India

n blood a nd wa s a ffilia

t e d with theNava

jo Na t ion. The spe c ia l a ge n t te stifie d from e x am ining thedoc um e nt tha t it wa s issue d by

the Nava jo Na tion a n d tha t he fe lt a ra ise d se a l on thedoc um e nt. The distric t c ourt
a dm itte d the doc um e nt without obje c tion from PM B . On a ppe a l , PM B c la i m s tha

t 2a dm ission of the doc um e nt wa s im

prope r. W e re vie w for pla in e rror. U nite d State s v . Olano , 507 U.S. 725, 731 (1993). Unde r this sta nda rd,
an a p pe lla te c ourt m ay , in its discre t ion, c orre c t a n e rror not ra ise d at tria l only whe re the a

ppe lla nt de m o nstra

te s tha t (1) the re is a

n e rror; (2) the e rror is c le ar or obvious, ra the r tha n subje c t to re a sona

b l e dispute ; (3) the e rror a ffe c te d the a ppe lla nt’ s substa

ntia l rights, whic h in the ordina

ry c a se m e an s it a ffe c te d the outc om e of the distric t c ourt proc e e dings; a

n d (4) the e rror se riously

a ffe c t[s] the fa irne s s, inte grity or public re puta

tion of judic ia l proc e e dings. Unite d State s v . Marc us , 560 U.S. 258, 262 (2010) (c ita tions a n d quota tion m arks
om i tte d). Adm ission of the

doc um e nt wa s pla in e rror. W e are bound by our holding in Unite d State s v . Alv ire z , — F.3d — , 2016 W L 4073312 (9th C ir. Aug. 1, 2016). First, it wa s e rror to a dm it the doc um e nt. The gove rnm e nt c o uld not
a uthe ntic ate the doc um e n t through the FB I spe c ia l a ge nt’ s te s tim o ny be c a use the spe c ia l a ge n t did not me e t the re quire m e nts se t forth in Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 902(2). 1 Se e id. at *6. So thec ourt m ust ha ve tre ate d the doc um e nt a s se l fa uthe ntic ating. B ut a s we he ld in Alv ire z , “ India n tribe s a re not liste d am ong the
e ntitie s tha

t m ay produc e se lf-a

uthe ntic ating doc um e nts,” and thus it wa s e rror for

1 Fe de ra l R

ule of Evide nc e 902(2) a llows publicoffic e rs of e ntitie s liste d in 902(1) to c e rtify

tha t the signa

ture on a dom e stic public doc um e nt is ge nuine and signe d by som e one with the offic ia l c a pa c ity to do so. B ut the Nava

jo Na tion is not a m ong thosee ntitie s liste d in Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 902(1), nor did the FB I spe c ia l a ge n t te stify

tha t he wa s a n offic ia l of the Nava

jo Na tion. 3the d istric t c o urt to a d m it the doc um e nt a s se lf-a uthe ntic ating unde r Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 902(1). Id. at *6. Se c ond, the e rror wa s pla in, or obvious. The FB I spe c ia l a ge nt wa s not a triba l offic ia l of the Nava jo Na tion, but ra

the r an e m

ploy e e of the Unite d State s; this m uc h is obvious. His te stim ony pla inly did not a uthe ntic ate the doc um e nt. Like wise , a dm ission under Fe de ra l R ule of Evide nc e 902(1) wa s a pla in, obvious
e rror give n our holding in Alv ire z . This ruleof e vide nc e is una m biguous a nd m ust be a p plie d a s writte n. Alv i re

z , — F.3d — , 2016 WL 4073312, a

t *6 (c iting Garde nhire

v . IRS (In reGarde nhire

) , 209 F.3d 1145, 1152 (9th C ir. 2000)); se e also He nde rson v . Unite d State s , 133 S. C t. 1121, 1130-31 (2013) (“It is e nough that an e rror be ‘ pla in’ at the tim e of a ppe l late c onside ration for these c ond pa rt of the four-pa

rt Olano te st to besatisfie d.” (quota t ion m arks, c i tation, a

nd a l te rations
om i tte d)). Third, thee rror a ffe c te d substa ntia l rights. To a ffe c t

substa ntia l rights, “ in
m ost c a se s . . . the e rror m ust ha ve be e n pre

judic ia l: It m

ust ha ve a ffe c te d the outc om e of the distric t c ourt proc e e dings.” Olano , 507 U.S. a t 734 (c ita

t ions
om i tte d). Unlikeha

rm le ss e rror re v ie w, howe ve r, the de fe nda nt ha s the burde n of pe rsua sion. Id . at 734-35. PM B ha s m e t tha t burde n he re . As in A lv i re z , PM B ’ s

“ India n sta t us is a t the he art of this matte r.” Alv ire z , — F.3d — , 2016 W L 44073312, a

t *6. Also a s in A lv ire

z , “ [a ] dm ission of the

C e rtific ate a llowe d the gove rnm e nt to e s ta

blish both e l e m e nts of India n sta tus. . . . Absent a dm ission of the C e rtific ate , it is que stiona ble whe the r the gove rnm e nt would ha ve e sta blishe d . . . India n sta tus to the satisfa c t ion of thejury . . . .” 2 Id. The re wa s no othe r dire c t te stim ony tha t PM B ha d som e qua

ntum of India n blood or wa s a

m e m be r of a fe de ra lly -re c ogniz e d tribe . The gove rnm e n t points to dispa

rate pa rts of the re c ord from whic h it a

rgue s tha t the distric t c ourt, with some im a gina tion, c ould ha

ve infe rre d tha

t PM B ha d soc ia l sta

nding a s a

n India n. Se e Ze pe da , 792 F.3d a

t 1114. B ut this te stim ony

did not e sta

blish tha t PM B ha d “ som e qua

ntum of India n blood,” and it is ha

rd to im a gine tha

t the distric t c ourt would ha ve c o nc lude d— on this re c ord a

bse nt the doc um e nt purporting to be an e nrollm e nt c e rtific ate

— that the gove rnm e nt prove d be y ond a re a sona ble doubt tha

t PM B m e t e ithe r of the
re quire m e nts for India

n sta tus. A “ de fe nda

nt’ s India n sta tus is a n e sse ntia l e le m e nt [of a § 1153 offe nse ] whic h the gove rnm e nt m u st a l le ge in the indic tm e nt a nd prove be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt.” Id. at 1110 (quoting B ruc e , 394 F.3d a t 1229). B e c a use the im

prope rly a dm itte d e vide nc e se rve d to e sta blish a n e sse ntia l e le m e nt of the c ha rge d offe nse s , PM B ha s de m onstra te d tha t it is more like ly

tha n not the outc om e would bediffe re nt a bse nt the im

prope r a dm ission. Se e Alv i re z , — F.3d

2 PM B ’ s proc e e ding wa s a be nc h tria l, but this doe s not a ffe c t our holding. 5— , 2016 W L 4073312, a t *6 (holding tha

t “ it wa s m o re like l y

tha n not tha t the
a dm ission of the

C e rtific ate m ate ria lly

a ffe c te d the ve rdic t ” ). Fourth, the pla inly

e rrone ous a dm ission of the doc um e nt se riously a ffe c te d the fa irne ss, inte grity , a

nd public re puta

tion of theproc e e ding. As wehav e disc usse d, it is more like ly tha n not tha t PM B would not ha

v e be e n c o nvic te d without the

im prope rly a dm itte d e vide nc e . Furthe r, this is not a c a se in whic h the
re m a ining e vide nc e of his India n sta t us is “ ove rwhe lm ing.” Se e J ohnson v . Unite d State s , 520 U.S. 461, 470 (1997). B e c a use India n sta tus is a n e s se ntia l e le m e nt of § 1153, its proof through im prope rly a dm itte d e vide nc e a ffe c te d the fa irne ss of the
e ntire p roc e e ding. For the se re a sons, we e xe rc ise our disc re tion to c orre c t the e rror. W e re ve rse PM B ’ s c onvic tion a nd re m and for furthe r proc e e dings c onsiste n t with this de c ision. Se e Loc k

hart v . N e lson , 488 U.S. 33, 40 (1988); Unite d State s v . W e e ms , 49 F.3d 528, 531 (9th C ir. 1995).

RE V E RSE D and RE M ANDE D
.

6