Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo Sure CHIEF, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 231 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 06-30453
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leo Sure CHIEF, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 231
Pages: 716–716

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Leo Sure CHIEF, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-30453.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 10, 2007 .
Filed May 14, 2007.
Joseph E. Thaggard, Esq., USGF—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Great Falls, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Michael Donahoe, Esq., FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana, Helena Branch, Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: PREGERSON, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Leo Sure Chief, Jr., appeals the district court's denial of his motion for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Sure Chiefs argument is foreclosed by Lindsey v. United States, 368 F.2d 633, 636 (9th Cir.1966).
United States v. Davis, 960 F.2d 820, 825 (9th Cir.1992), is not to the contrary because B.V.'s testimony was corroborated by Sure Chiefs own confession. Sure Chief offers reasons to doubt his confession, as he did at trial. But even assuming that B.V.'s repudiated recantation totally destroys her credibility (contrary to the district court's conclusion), the inquiry is: "was there sufficient evidence apart from [B.V.'s] testimony to permit a reasonable jury to find [Sure Chief] guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?" Id. Because a reasonable jury could believe Sure Chiefs confession, and disbelieve his explanation for it, the answer is "yes."
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.