United States v. Blind, 429 F. App'x 795

William Blind, an elected Business Committee member for the A-1 District, was charged with embezzlement and theft from the Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes; his wife Vinita Sankey was co-defendant on related counts.
Tribes’ funds derive from IGRA gaming revenues; EA program disbursements and Tribal procurement rules governed expenditures and required vendor-specific checks and bidding for larger purchases.
The FBI investigated in 2004; Blind and Sankey were indicted on conspiracy and multiple embezzlement counts, including cashier’s checks, vehicle purchases, and computer equipment.
A jury convicted Blind on all counts except the computer embezzlement; the district court corrected the PSR loss for sentencing, and ultimately set restitution at around $121,374.
The PSR initially calculated total loss as $216,538.14, later reduced to $171,041.71 for guideline purposes; Blind objected to several loss components.
The district court’s restitution and loss determinations were challenged on sufficiency grounds, loss calculations under USSG 2B1.1, and MVRA restitution amounts; the appellate court affirmed convictions and sentence but reversed restitution and remanded for restitution-only resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for cashier’s-check counts	Blind contends cash findings insufficient to prove embezzlement.	Blind argues funds were used for legitimate tribal purposes and not personally converted.	Sufficiency upheld; circumstantial evidence supported embezzlement.
Sufficiency of evidence for vehicle counts	Blind asserts no evidence of personal use or concealment of vehicles.	Blind claims tribal ownership and legitimate use under custom.	Sufficiency upheld; evidence supported conversion for personal use.
Calculation of loss for guidelines	Loss amount used to set offense level improperly included unsupported items.	District court erred in loss calculations affecting guideline range.	Loss calculation affirmed as harmless error; advisory range unchanged.
Restitution amount under MVRA	Restitution included supported losses; some items lacked evidentiary support.	Certain restitution components were improperly included or not proved.	Restitution reversed for unsupported amount; remanded for restitution-specific calculations.

Davila v. United States, 693 F.2d 1006 (10th Cir. 1982) (circumstantial evidence can support embezzlement;)
Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2009) (unusual, covert transactions support intent to embezzle)
Mullins, 613 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2010) (loss findings reviewed for clear error; deference to district court on calculations)
Griffith, 584 F.3d 1004 (10th Cir. 2009) (burden on government to prove loss amount by preponderance)
James, 564 F.3d 1237 (10th Cir. 2009) (MVRA restitution review is abuse of discretion; plain error if not objected)
Overholt, 307 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2002) (uncontested PSR restitution facts can be adopted without further fact-finding)