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. ALLEN JOSEPH OLD HOR N, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30124

D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00103-SPW -3
M EM O R ANDUM *

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. DALE DR

EW OLD HOR

N , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 14-30126

D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00103-SPW -1

UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. No. 14-30127 D.C . No. 1:12-c r-00103-SPW -5



# FIL ED SEP 23 2015 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.SHAW

N TALKING EAGLE DANFOR TH, De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. Appe a l from

the Unite d

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

na Susa n P. W atte rs, Distric t Judge , Pre siding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

Se pte m be r 1, 2015 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, GOULD, a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. Da le Old Horn, Allen Old Horn, a nd Sha wn Da nforth a ppe a l the ir
c onvic tions for m a il fra

ud unde r 18 U.S.C
. § 1341, c onspira c y to c om m it m a il fraud unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371, the ft from an orga niz ation re c e i ving fe de ra l funding unde r 18 U.S.C . § 666(a )(1)(A), and the ft from an India n triba l orga

niz ation unde r 18 U.S.C . § 1163. Allen Old Horn a lso a ppe a ls his c onvic tions for e xtortion involving a

fe de ra lly funde d progra

m unde r 18 U.S.C . § 666(a )(1)(B ) an d fe de ra l inc o m e tax fra

ud unde r 26 U.S.C . § 7206(1). W e have jurisdic t ion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291, a

nd we a ffirm
. 1

1 W e a lso gra

nt Da nforth's re que st to ta

ke judic ia l notic e of a

tra nsc ript of a

n a udio re c ording introduc e d a s an e xhibit a

t tria l. Se e Fe d. R . Evid. 201(b)(2). 2Vie wing thee vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora b le to the prose c ution, a

jury
c ould ha v e re a sona

bly c onc lude d tha

t the prose c ution prove d e a c h e le m e nt of the
m a il fra ud c ounts be y ond a

re a s ona ble doubt. Se e J

ac k son v . Virginia , 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). A re a sona ble jury c ould ha v e found tha

t the prose c ution prove d
use of the m a ils ba se d on te stim ony from the c om pa nie s tha t the y m a ile d c he c ks dire c tly to the m onitors. A re a sona ble jury c ould ha ve a l so c o nc lude d tha

t the prose c ution prove d

a sc he m e to de fraud the tribe and the inte nt to de frau d ba se d on
e vide nc e tha

t Da le Old Horn c ha

nge d the billing pra c tic e s without c onsulting the tribe , tha t the m onitors we re pa id dire c tly by the c om pa n ie s while c o ntinuing to
re c e ive the i r triba l sa la

rie s , tha t dire c t pa ym e nts we re lim ite d to fa m ily m e m be rs, inc l uding Allen Old Horn a nd Sha wn Da nforth, a nd tha t c e rta in fa

m ily m e m be rs atte m pte d to hidethe dire c t pa

ym e nts from

the tribe
. Se e Ec le c t ic Prope rtie s E., LLC v . Marc us & Millic hap C o. , 751 F.3d 990, 997 (9th C ir. 2014)
. Vie wing thee vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora b le to the prose c ution, a
re a s ona ble jury c ould ha v e c onc lude d tha

t the prose c ution prove d e a c h e le m e nt of
a c onspira c y

unde r 18 U.S.C . § 371 be y ond a re a sona b le doubt. A re a sona

ble jury
c ould ha v e infe rre d a

n a gre e m e nt a

m ong the de fe nda

nts to de fraud the C row Tribe
and the re quisiteinte nt to do so, ba se d on e vide nc e tha t the fam ily

c o ordina te d its
e fforts to m a xim iz e dire c t pa y m e nts to fa

m i ly m e m be rs. Se e Unite d State

s v . 3Gre e n , 592 F.3d 1057, 1067 (9th C ir. 2010); Unite d State s v . W right , 215 F.3d 1020, 1028 (9th C ir. 2000). A re a sona ble jury c ould ha ve a lso c onc lude d tha

t the prose c ution prove d
e a c h e l e m e nt of the ft from an orga niz ation re c e i ving fe de ra l funding be y ond a
re a s ona ble doubt. A re a s ona

ble jury c ould ha ve c onc lude d tha

t the C row Tribe Historic Pre se rvation Offic e (C THPO) re c e ive d ove r $10,000 pe r y e ar in fe de ra l funding ba se d on e vide nc e tha t the tribe and C THPO re c e ive d be twe e n $83,000
and $102,000 e a c h y e ar from the Nationa l Pa

rk Se rvic e ’ s Historic Pre se rvat ion Fund. A re a sona

ble jury c ould ha ve found tha

t the de fe nda

nts e m be z z le d, stole , knowingly

c onve rte d, or inte ntiona lly m isa p plie d funds tha

t should ha

ve gone to the t ribe ba se d on e vide nc e tha t the m onitors re c e ive d dire c t pa ym e nts from

the
c om pa nie s in a ddition to the ir triba l sa la rie s, tha t the tribe ’ s polic y

wa s to re c oup the m onitors’ ba se sa l arie s from the c om pa nie s , a nd tha t the tribe prohibite d outsidee m

p loy m e nt a nd a c c e pting outside

c om pe nsation for se rvic e s pe rform e d during a ny offic i a l duty

hours. Se e Unite d State

s v . Dupe e , 569 F.2d 1061, 1064 (9th C ir. 1978). A re a s ona ble jury c ould ha ve c onc lude d be y ond a

re a sona ble doubt tha t the am ount of prope rty

stole n by the de fe n d ants ha d a

va lue of $5,000 or
m ore , ba se d on e vide nc e tha t c om pa nie s pa id m ore tha

n $500,000 dire c tly

to the
m onitors for m onitoring servic e s inste a d of m aking thosepa ym e nts to thetribe , 4and the m onitors re t a ine d the se pa ym e nts for the m se lve s rat he r tha n re m itting them to the tribe
. 2 A re a sona ble jury c ould ha ve c onc lude d tha

t the gove rnm e nt prove d

e a c h
e le m e nt of the ft from

an India n triba l orga

n iz ation be y ond a re a sona ble doubt. B a se d on the sa

m e e vide nc e use d to provethe ft from an orga niz ation re c e iving fe de ra l funds, a

re a sona ble j ury vie wing the e vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora ble to the p rose c ution c o uld ha

ve c onc lude d tha

t the de fe nda

n ts e m b e z z l e d, stole , knowingly

c onve rte d, or inte ntiona lly m isa p plie d funds tha

t be longe d to the tribe , and the funds ha d a

va lue gre at e r tha

n $1,000. Se e 18 U.S.C . § 1163. Vie wing thee vide nc e in the light mo st fa vora b le to the prose c ution, thejury
c ould ha v e a l so c onc lude d

be y ond a re a sona b le doubt tha

t the prose c ution prove d
e a c h of the e le m e nts of e xtortion involving a fe de ra lly funde d progra

m unde r 18 U.S.C . § 666(a )(1)(B ) with re spe c t to Alle n Old Horn. B a s e d on e vide nc e tha t Alle n Old Horn thre ate ne d to usethe powe r of the tribe to shut down a proje c t if he
wa s not pa id dire c tly

an d im m e diate ly , the jury

c ould ha v e c onc lude d tha

t he inte nde d to be influe nc e d by ille gitim ate pa

ym e n ts tota ling m ore tha

n $5,000. Se e

2 B e c a u se we m ust vie w the e vide n c e in the light most fa vora ble to sustaining the v e rdic t, se e Unite d State s v . Budziak

, 697 F.3d 1105, 1108 (9th C ir. 2012), it is irre le va nt tha t the gove rnm e nt c ha

nge d its the ory

re ga rding thenat

ure of the stole n prope rty on a ppe a l. 5Unite d

State s v . Garrido , 713 F.3d 985, 999–1000 (9th C ir. 2013); Unite d State s v . Simas , 937 F.2d 459, 463 (9th C ir. 1991). A re a sona ble jury c ould ha ve c onc lude d be y o nd a

re a sona ble doubt tha

t Alle n Old Horn c om

m i tte d fe de ra l inc om e tax fra ud unde r 26 U.S.C . § 7206(1). B a se d on e vide nc e tha

t Alle n Old Horn ove rstate d his mile a g e and supplie s e xpe nse s on his signe d tax re t urn, a nd te stim o ny

from his ta x pre p are r that

the inform at ion in thetax re turn wa s obta ine d from Alle n Old Horn, a re a sona

ble jury
c ould ha v e c o nc l ude d tha

t Alle n Old Horn intentiona lly fa lsifie d his e xpe nse s in orde r to de c re a se h i s tax lia bility and m a xim i z e his re fund. Se e 26 U.S.C . § 7206(1). The distric t c ourt did not err in re fusing to instruct the jury on the de fe nda n ts’ good fa ith de fe n s e be c a use the jury

wa s a d e quat e ly

instruc te d with
re ga rd to the inte nt re quire d to be found guilty of e a c h c rim e c ha

rge d. Se e Unite d State s v . Shipse

y , 363 F.3d 962, 967 (9th C ir. 2004). Eve n if the distric t

c ourt e rre d in re fusing to instruct the jury on the bona fide wa ge s de fe nse unde r 18 U.S.C . § 666(c ), any suc h e rror would be ha rm le ss be c a use the gove rnm e nt pre se nte d ove rwhe lm ing a nd unc ontrove rte d e vide nc e tha t the d e fe nda

nts we re not pe rm itte d to re c e ive both dire c t pa ym e nts a nd the ir triba l
sa la rie s. Se e Unite d State

s v . Drigge rs , 559 F.3d 1021, 1025 (9th C i r. 2009).

6The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in re fusing to a dm it De fe nda nts’ Exhibit 1524 on re le v anc e grounds be c a use a c ha nge in polic y

to
m ake c e rta i n c onduc t m ore e xplic itly prohibite d doe s not show tha t the c onduc t wa s not prohibite d in thefirst insta nc e . Thus, it wa s not “ illogic a l, im pla usible , or without support in infe

re nc e s tha t m ay be drawn from

fa c ts in the re c ord” for the distric t c o urt judgeto e xc l ude the doc um e nt on re le va n c e grounds. Se e Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba nc ). It wa s not plain e rror for the distric t c ourt to e xc lude De fe nda n ts’ Exhibit 1513 be c a use , e ve n if the re wa s e rror, it did not a ffe c t the de fe nda nts’ substa

ntia l rights. Se e Unite d State

s v . Hay at , 710 F.3d 875, 894–95 (9th C ir. 2013) (e n ba nc ). B e c a use the re wa s a

m ple othe r e vide nc e pre se nte d to the jury that Da le Old Horn did not be lie ve the dire c t pa ym e nts to bein viola

tion of tribal polic y , the de fe nda n ts c annot show pre

judic e in the e xc lusion of the Stat e m e nt of Unde rsta nding. Unite d State

s v . Pe re z , 116 F.3d 840, 847 (9th C ir. 1997) (e n ba nc ). AFFIRM E D.

7