United States v. Damien Zepeda
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11646
9th Cir.2015Background
- Zepeda was charged under the Indian Major Crimes Act for offenses occurring on the Ak-Chin Reservation, with the government asserting Indian status as a jurisdiction element.
- Enrollment Certificate showed Zepeda as an enrolled member of the Gila River Indian Community with blood quantum of one-half Indian blood (Pima and Tohono O’Odham).
- Matthew testified that Zepeda was half-Indian and shared the same father, supporting some Indian blood for the first Bruce prong.
- Maggi later held the first prong requires blood quantum traceable to a federally recognized tribe, which the majority overruled; the court adopts a two-prong framework focusing on blood quantum and current tribal affiliation.
- The district court instructed the jury to find Indian status without specifying how to determine it; the order was challenged as plain error.
- The majority holds the government proved Indian status and affirms Zepeda’s convictions and sentence; Maggi is overruled on the first prong, restoring Bruce’s framework; sentence under § 924(c) mandatory minimums was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the evidence sufficient to prove Indian status under IMCA? | Zepeda | Maggi requires tribal federal recognition for blood prong | Yes; enrollment and blood quantum show status at offense time. |
| Was the jury instructed properly on determining Indian status? | Zepeda | No objection; plain error not preserved | Plain error but not outcome-determinative; reversal not warranted. |
| Should Maggi be overruled and Bruce restored for IMCA status? | Zepeda | Maggi correct; Bruce insufficient | Overruled Maggi; Bruce framework restored. |
| Is Zepeda’s sentence reasonable given § 924(c) mandatory minimums? | Zepeda | Sentence dictated by statute and charging decisions | Constitutional sequence compelled consecutive mandatory minimums; sentence affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bruce, 394 F.3d 1215 (9th Cir. 2005) (two-prong test for Indian status under IMCA: blood quantum and tribal recognition)
- United States v. Maggi, 598 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2010) (gloss extending federal recognition requirement to first prong)
- LaPier v. McCormick, 986 F.2d 303 (9th Cir. 1993) (treats federal recognition as a question of law; relevant for status inquiry)
- United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641 (U.S. 1977) (recognition as tribal member grounds for jurisdiction; not racial)
- Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 (U.S. 1974) (Indian blood quantum used in a political relationship context)
- Cruz v. United States, 554 F.3d 840 (9th Cir. 2009) (recognition criteria emphasizing tribal affiliation)
- United States v. Teague, 722 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2013) (discusses instructional error and substantial rights)
- United States v. Rogers, 45 U.S. (4 How.) 567 (U.S. 1846) (early racial framework for Indian status; distinguished later doctrine)
- Rice v. Cayetano, 528 U.S. 495 (U.S. 2000) (concerns race-based political distinctions; referenced in dissent)