Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrien John MATUCK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-16
Citations: 644 F. App'x 778
Docket Number: No. 13-30004
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrien John MATUCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 644
Pages: 778–779

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adrien John MATUCK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-30004.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted Feb. 2, 2016.
Filed March 16, 2016.
Jessica Anne Betley, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S., Billings, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Palmer A. Hoovestal, Hoovestal Law Firm, PLLC, Helena, MT, for Defendant Appellant.
Before: KOZINSKI, O’SCANNLAIN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
We consider Adrien Matuck's challenges to his conviction for first degree murder.
I
The government presented sufficient evidence upon which the jury could conclude that Matuck was an -"Indian" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a). The "Certificate of Indian Blood" presented at trial stated both that Matuck had a total quantum of 15/16 Indian blood and that he was enrolled in the Hualapai Tribe of Peach Springs, Arizona. This tribe is included in the Bureau of Indian Affairs' list of federally recognized tribes. See 75 Fed.Reg. 60,810, 60,811 (Oct. 1, 2010). Such evidence satisfies our Circuit's test for Indian status under § 1153. See United States v. Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103, 1115-16 (9th Cir.2015) (en banc).
II
The government was not required to show that the murder victim was also an Indian to establish jurisdiction over Ma-tuck's crime. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a) (conferring jurisdiction over certain crimes committed "against the person or property of another Indian or other person" (emphasis added)); United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215, 1221 (9th Cir.2005).
III
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Matuck's motion for a new trial, which he failed to support with any newly discovered evidence. See Fed R.Crim. P. 83; United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2013).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, .