United States v. White Eagle, No. 11-30352 (9th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent at the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, was convicted of charges stemming from her involvement in a scheme to obtain money from a tribal credit program. The court reversed defendant's convictions on Counts I and II (conspiracy, theft and conversion of Indian Tribal Organization property) because the alleged object of the conspiracy - the loan modification - was not itself criminal and, therefore, there could be no conspiracy; affirmed defendant's conviction on Count III (bribery) where a rational jury could easily infer a quid pro quo from the facts; reversed defendant's conviction on Count IV (falsification, concealment, or covering up of a material fact) because the government did not show that defendant violated a specific duty to report Credit Program fraud; reversed defendant's conviction on Count V (public acts affecting a personal financial interest) because defendant's financial interest in this matter was insufficient under 18 U.S.C. 208(a); and affirmed defendant's conviction on Count VI (misprision of a felony) where a jury could conclude that payment of the loans at issue made the discovery of the fraud less likely and, therefore, that defendant took an affirmative step to conceal the felony. The court also concluded that there was no Fifth Amendment violation arising out of defendant's convictions on Count V and VI. Finally, the court remanded for resentencing where the district court erred in adjusting the sentence.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed in part and reversed in part a criminal judgment in a case arising out of the involvement by the Bureau of Indian Affairs Superintendent at the Fort Peck Indian Reservation in a scheme to obtain money from a tribal credit program. Reversing convictions on counts charging conspiracy to convert tribal credit program proceeds (18 U.S.C. § 371) and theft and conversion from an Indian Tribal Organization (18 U.S.C. §§ 1163, 2), the panel held that the government’s misapplication theory, predicated at best on an employer directive and a civil regulation, cannot support a conviction; and that the government’s embezzlement and conversion theories also fail because the defendant never controlled or had custody of the funds that she later borrowed. Affirming a bribery conviction (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)), the panel held that a jury could easily infer a quid pro quo and had ample evidence to conclude that the defendant’s actions were “corrupt.” Because the government did not show that the defendant violated a specific duty to report credit program fraud, the panel reversed her conviction of concealment of public corruption (18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1)). The panel reversed a conviction for public acts affecting a personal financial interest (18 U.S.C. § 208(a)(1)) because the connection between the payment of a BIA Administrative Officer’s fraudulent nominee loans and the defendant’s alleged financial interest is remote and speculative. The panel held that there was sufficient evidence to support the defendant’s conviction of misprision of a felony (18 U.S.C. § 4). The panel rejected the defendant’s contention that her convictions for public acts affecting a financial interest and misprision of a felony would violate her Fifth Amendment right to avoid self-incrimination because each charge relied on her duty to report criminal activity that would have exposed her to prosecution. The panel reasoned that the connection between the defendant’s loan modification and the BIA Administrative Officer’s use of nominee borrowers is too remote to implicate the defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. The panel held that the district court erred at sentencing in its application of U.S.S.G. § 2C1.1(b)(2), when it appeared to value the loan modification using standard “loss” calculations instead of focusing on the “value of the benefit” the defendant received. The panel explained that any sentencing adjustment must be based on the value of the loan modification as a bribe, and remanded for further proceedings.
The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on November 12, 2013.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.