United States v. Ganadonegro, 854 F. Supp. 2d 1068

Ganadonegro charged in Superseding Indictment with three counts: second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, and negligent child abuse resulting in death on Indian Country.
Issue centers on ACA assimilation vs IMCA for Count 3 and whether Count 3 is multiplicitous with Counts 1 and 2.
The U.S. argues IMCA defines and punishes felony child abuse/neglect; ACA not required.
Ganadonegro argues no IMCA coverage; abusing child death falls under federal homicide law; multiplicity risk.
Court finds no federal offense defined/punished as felony child abuse under IMCA; counts not multiplicitous; IMCA permits prosecution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
ACA vs IMCA for Count 3	U.S. relies on IMCA to prosecute state crime.	Ganadonegro says IMCA/ACA gap gap; unclear coverage.	Count 3 permissible under IMCA; not dismissed.
Multiplicity of Count 3 with Count 1	Counts require distinct facts; not duplicative.	Multiplicity risk due to overlapping mens rea.	Not multiplicitous under Blockburger/Two-step test.
IMCA defines/prosecutes felony child abuse	IMCA covers felony child abuse/neglect, even if defined by state law.	Federal law does not define/punish felony child abuse under IMCA.	Federal law does not define/punish felony child abuse; but IMCA allows state-defined offense.

Lewis v. United States, 523 U.S. 155 (U.S. 1998) (ACA gap-filling language; interpretation distinctions with IMCA)
United States v. Other Medicine, 596 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2010) (IMCA permits state offense when federal offense not defined/punished; two separate enumerated crimes)
United States v. Bear, 932 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1990) (IMCA context; burglary offenses not precluded by federal offenses with limited scope)
United States v. McCullough, 457 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 2006) (multiplicity doctrine; penalties for same conduct may be improper)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 304 (1932) (same elements test for two offenses arising from same act)