United States v. Frank Sanchez, 42 F.4th 970

Sanchez was federally indicted in 2019 under the Major Crimes Act for sexual offenses alleged by three women: S.K.M. (incidents in 1996), J.S. (incidents in 2006), and G.D. (1984; not charged). Charges included aggravated sexual abuse and abusive sexual contact with a minor.
The government gave notice under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 414 of intent to introduce prior-acts testimony from S.K.M., J.S., and G.D.; the district court denied Sanchez’s motion in limine and admitted that testimony after a Rule 403 balancing.
At trial J.S. testified about two incidents in 2006; the jury convicted Sanchez of one count for conduct at his aunt Letha Hare’s home and acquitted him on charges related to S.K.M.
The government introduced a BIA aerial photograph and a title status report, and BIA deputy superintendent David LaCompte testified the tract including Hare’s address was held in trust for the Yankton Sioux Tribe in 2006; the parties had agreed to submit the Indian‑country question to the jury.
At sentencing the district court applied a five‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. §4B1.5(b)(1) based in part on trial testimony and alleged abuse of S.K.M., yielding an 87‑month sentence; Sanchez appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to show the offense occurred in Indian Country	Government: title status report and BIA testimony established the tract was held in trust and within the Yankton Sioux Reservation	Sanchez: evidence insufficient to prove the location was Indian Country	Affirmed. Jury had a reasonable basis from BIA materials and testimony to find Indian Country.
Admissibility of prior sexual‑acts testimony under Rules 413/414	Government: prior acts were similar in manner, victims’ ages, and timing; probative of propensity and other relevant matters	Sanchez: testimony was not necessarily sexual assault/child molestation, was dissimilar or too remote, and limiting instruction was deficient	Affirmed. District court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice and limiting instructions mitigated risk.
Use of acquitted/uncharged conduct at sentencing	Government: relevant conduct and precedent permit consideration of acquitted or uncharged acts at sentencing	Sanchez: consideration violated Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights	Affirmed. Precedent forecloses the constitutional challenge; district court’s enhancement stands.

United States v. White, 962 F.3d 1052 (8th Cir.) (standard for sufficiency review)
United States v. Mabery, 686 F.3d 591 (8th Cir.) (deference on credibility; reversal only if no reasonable jury could convict)
United States v. Stymiest, 581 F.3d 759 (8th Cir.) (Major Crimes Act Indian status framework)
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. Podhradsky, 606 F.3d 994 (8th Cir.) (land held in trust is within reservation)
United States v. Love, 20 F.4th 407 (8th Cir.) (question whether land is Indian Country is a legal question for the court)
United States v. Stands, 105 F.3d 1565 (8th Cir.) (permitting submission of Indian‑country question to jury by agreement)
United States v. Luger, 837 F.3d 870 (8th Cir.) (Rules 413/414 create propensity exceptions in sexual‑assault cases)
United States v. Gabe, 237 F.3d 954 (8th Cir.) (prior sexual assault relevance and similarity requirement)
United States v. Crow Eagle, 705 F.3d 325 (8th Cir.) (prior acts relevant when committed in a similar manner)
United States v. LeCompte, 131 F.3d 767 (8th Cir.) (Rule 403 balancing of probative value and prejudice)
United States v. Halk, 634 F.3d 482 (8th Cir.) (deference to district court’s evidentiary balancing)
United States v. Splettstoeszer, 956 F.3d 545 (8th Cir.) (prejudicial Rule 414 evidence not inherently unfair)
United States v. Oakie, 993 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir.) (acquitted conduct may be considered at sentencing; precedent rejecting constitutional claim)
United States v. Papakee, 573 F.3d 569 (8th Cir.) (same)