Opinion ID: 160888
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 11 Mr. Gardner first argues that the district court lacked jurisdiction because the government failed to plead and prove two essential jurisdictional elements for a 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(1) violation--namely, that Mr. Gardner was not an Indian and that the crime affected interstate commerce. We review issues of jurisdiction de novo. United States v. Cuch, 79 F.3d 987, 990 (10th Cir. 1996). 12 As for Indian status, Mr. Gardner argues that under 18 U.S.C. 1152 and our decision in United States v. Prentiss, 206 F.3d 960 (10th Cir. 2000), reh'g en banc granted, No. 98-2040 (10th Cir. June 19, 2000), the government was required to plead and prove that Mr. Gardner was not an Indian. 2 We disagree. 18 U.S.C. 1152 extends the the general laws of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, except the District of Columbia, . . . to the Indian country, subject to a few exceptions. Id. Because the Lacey Act is not a general law[] of the United States as to the punishment of offenses committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, 18 U.S.C. 1152, and because 16 U.S.C. 3372 applies to actions on state and Indian land, 18 U.S.C. 1152 is not applicable to Lacey Act violations. United States v. Cowboy, 694 F.2d 1228, 1234 (10th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, the non-Indian status of the defendant is not an essential element of jurisdiction for a 16 U.S.C. 3372 violation. 13 Mr. Gardner's argument that effect on interstate commerce is an essential element is contrary to the plain language of 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(1), which applies when wildlife taken in violation of tribal law is transported, received, or acquired. It is only necessary to plead and prove an interstate commerce nexus where 3372(a)(2) is implicated. See 16 U.S.C. 3372(a)(2) (It is unlawful for any person--to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce--(A) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of any State . . . .). In light of this conclusion, we need not address the government's argument that Mr. Gardner did not properly object to the district court's 3372(a)(1) jury instruction.