UNITED STATES v. MANCHA (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Thomas Edward Mancha appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 240-month sentence for second-degree murder, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1111 and 1153(a). We dismiss.

Counsel for Mancha initially filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that she found no meritorious issues for review, along with a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. We granted the motion to withdraw, appointed new counsel, and ordered further briefing on whether there was an adequate factual basis to support jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 1153(a), the Indian Major Crimes Act (“IMCA”), where Mancha did not admit in the plea agreement or at the change-of-plea hearing that he had “some quantum of Indian blood, whether or not that blood derives from a member of a federally recognized tribe.” United States v. Zepeda, 792 F.3d 1103, 1113 (9th Cir. 2015) (en banc).

After further briefing and upon our review of the record, we conclude that there was an adequate factual basis to support jurisdiction under the IMCA. As part of the factual basis for his plea, Mancha admitted that he was an enrolled member of the Blackfeet Indian Tribe. Article II of the Constitution and By-Laws for the Blackfeet Tribe, in effect at the time of Mancha’s birth, establishes that tribal membership was granted to children born to “any blood member of the Blackfeet Tribe.” In addition, Mancha’s tribal enrollment certificate, which Mancha stipulated was admissible, reflects that he has some quantum of Indian blood.¹ See United States v. Alvirez, 831 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 2016) (proof of having an Indian parent or a tribal enrollment certificate can establish a person’s quantum of Indian blood).

Mancha waived his right to appeal his conviction and sentence. Because the district court had jurisdiction under the IMCA, and the record does not support any other defense to enforcement of the waiver, we dismiss. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009).

DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We take judicial notice of the Tribe’s Constitution and By-Laws, as well as the tribal enrollment certificate. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b).