Opinion ID: 2814857
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Against Zepeda

Text: Zepeda argues the government failed to present sufficient evidence at trial to prove that he was an Indian. If Zepeda is right, we must reverse eight of his nine convictions. The government charged Zepeda with assault with a dangerous weapon and assault resulting in serious bodily harm under the IMCA. See 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (covering “felony assault[s] under section 113”); 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(3), (6). Conspiracy and use of a firearm during a crime of violence are “federal law[s] of general, non-territorial applicability,” which do not require the government to satisfy the IMCA’s elements. United States v. Errol D., Jr., 292 F.3d 1159, 1165 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Young, 936 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1991)). However, to prove that Zepeda used a firearm during a crime of violence, the government first had to prove that Zepeda committed the predicate assaults, United States v. Streit, 962 F.2d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 1992), which were charged under the IMCA. Therefore, conspiracy was the only count for which the government did not have to prove Zepeda’s Indian status. The first prong of the Bruce test requires only that the defendant have “some” quantum of Indian blood. Therefore, “evidence of a parent, grandparent, or great-grandparent who is clearly identified as an Indian is generally sufficient to satisfy this prong.” Bruce, 394 F.3d at 1223. The Enrollment Certificate stated that Zepeda had one-half Indian blood, with blood from the Pima and Tohono O’Odham tribes. Matthew, Zepeda’s brother, testified that their father was an Indian. This evidence was undisputed and clearly satisfied the first Bruce prong. See id. at 1223–24. As we held above, it is irrelevant whether the tribes from which Zepeda’s bloodline derives are federally recognized. UNITED STATES V. ZEPEDA 25 Zepeda’s Enrollment Certificate established that he was an enrolled member of the Gila River Indian Community. The Gila River Indian Community was, as a matter of law, a federally recognized tribe at the time of the charged offenses. See BIA List, 74 Fed. Reg. 40,218-02, 40,220 (Aug. 11, 2009); BIA List, 73 Fed. Reg. 18,553-01, 18,554 (Apr. 4, 2008). Zepeda stipulated to the admission of the Enrollment Certificate and did not challenge its attestation that he was a member of the Gila River Indian Community. We therefore hold that the Enrollment Certificate and Matthew’s testimony were sufficient to establish that Zepeda was an Indian at the time of the charged offenses. B. Zepeda’s Sentence Zepeda argues that his sentence—a prison term of ninety years and three months—was unreasonable because the district court improperly treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory. Zepeda’s sentence is indeed long, but his argument is based on a misunderstanding of the law governing his sentence. Under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), the district court was required to impose consecutive mandatory minimum sentences on Zepeda’s convictions for use of a firearm during a crime of violence. Each of Zepeda’s convictions under § 924(c) was tied to a different predicate offense: one count of assault resulting in serious bodily injury against Peters and three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon against Peters, Aviles, and C. The jury found that Zepeda discharged his firearm in committing each offense. Therefore, Zepeda’s first conviction under § 924(c) carried a statutory mandatory minimum sentence of ten years, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 26 UNITED STATES V. ZEPEDA and the other three convictions each carried statutory mandatory minimum sentences of twenty-five years, id. § 924(c)(1)(C)(i); see United States v. Beltran-Moreno, 556 F.3d 913, 915 (9th Cir. 2009). Each mandatory minimum sentence had to be imposed consecutively. 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(D)(ii); Beltran-Moreno, 556 F.3d at 915. Therefore, Zepeda’s sentence is the only sentence the district court could impose. See United States v. Harris, 154 F.3d 1082, 1085 (9th Cir. 1998). Its length was determined not by the judge but, in effect, by the United States Attorney’s charging decision. Zepeda’s other arguments challenging his sentence were not properly raised before this court. See Sandgathe v. Maass, 314 F.3d 371, 380 & n.8 (9th Cir. 2002); 9th Cir. R. 28-1(b).