Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LJO, Juvenile Male, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-19
Citations: 668 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 13-10340
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LJO, Juvenile Male, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: HAWKINS and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and SELNA, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LJO, Juvenile Male, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 13-10340
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted August 12, 2016 San Francisco, California
FILED August 19, 2016
Before: HAWKINS and GRABER, Circuit Judges, and SELNA, District Judge.
The Honorable James V. Selna, United States District Judge for the Central District of California, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
The United States appeals the district court's judgment of acquittal. The district court held that it lacked jurisdiction over this juvenile delinquency case under the Indian Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, because the government had presented insufficient evidence at trial to establish that LJO's Indian blood derived from a federally recognized tribe, citing United States v. Zepeda, 705 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2013). Intervening authority requires that we reverse and remand for the district co.urt to consider the effect of the superseding en banc opinion in United States v. Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1712, 194 L.Ed.2d 810 (2016). The district court should also decide in the first instance whether to take judicial notice of the Tohono O'odham Constitution for purposes of determining whether the government proved beyond a reasonable doubt that LJO has "some quantum of Indian blood." Id. at 1113.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.