USA V. LUKE SCOTT, SR., No. 21-30128 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Defendant filed two appeals with the Ninth Circuit, which were consolidated in a single opinion. Regarding Defendant's felony child abuse case, the court held that the Major Crimes Act granted federal jurisdiction. Although there is no "felony child abuse" statute under federal law, the Major Crimes Act permits prosecutors to charge a defendant in "accordance with the laws of the State in which such offense was committed. Here, Montana Code 45-5-212 provided a sufficient basis for the charge.
Regarding Defendant's aggravated sexual abuse case, the Ninth Circuit adopted the reasoning of the Tenth Circuit, finding that USSG 1B1.1 provides different definitions of “serious bodily injury”—a Harm Definition and a Conduct Definition. Because Defendant made no argument that the district court failed to apply the Harm Definition or that the victim’s injuries resulting from the sexual abuse or from Defendant's other conduct surrounding the offense failed to meet the Harm Definition, Defendant failed to prove the district court erred.
Court Description: Criminal Law. In consolidated appeals arising from two criminal cases, the panel (1) affirmed Luke Scott’s conviction for felony child abuse under the Major Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1153, and Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-212; and (2) affirmed the district court’s application of a serious bodily injury enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2A3.1(b)(4)(B) to Scott’s sentence for aggravated sexual abuse by force or threat in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2241(a).
The panel held that, as in United States v. Other Medicine, 596 F.3d 677 (9th Cir. 2010), the government properly charged Scott with felony child abuse under the Major Crimes Act and the Montana statute. The Major Crimes Act provides federal jurisdiction for the prosecution of Native Americans for discrete crimes, including “felony child abuse.” It also provides that, when an enumerated offense is not defined and punished by federal law, it shall be defined and punished in accordance with the laws of the state in which such offense was committed. The panel rejected Scott’s argument that Congress’s 2013 amendments to the Major Crime Act—including its addition of “a felony assault under section 113”—displaced the crime of felony child abuse under the Major Crimes Act such that the government may no longer use state law to define the crime. The panel wrote that if Congress intended 18 U.S.C.
§ 113(a)(7) (assault resulting in substantial bodily injury to an individual under age 16) to replace felony child abuse, Congress would have deleted felony child abuse from the Major Crimes Act. Because the 2013 amendments had no effect on the separate offense of felony child abuse under the Major Crimes Act, Other Medicine controls.
The panel rejected Scott’s argument that the district court’s imposition of the serious bodily injury enhancement under § 2A3.1(b)(4)(B) for his conviction for aggravated sexual abuse resulted in improper double counting. Scott argued that, because U.S.S.G. § 1B1.1 provides that “serious bodily injury” is deemed to have occurred for aggravated sexual abuse offenses, the base offense level for such offenses under the Sexual Abuse Guidelines must already account for serious bodily injury that resulted from the sexual abuse. The panel adopted the Tenth Circuit’s analysis, which reasoned that (1) § 1B1.1 provides different definitions of “serious bodily injury”—a Harm Definition and a Conduct Definition; (2) the Conduct Definition cannot be used when applying the Sexual Abuse Guideline; (3) nothing precludes a sentencing court from considering whether the victim’s injuries “resulting directly from the sexual abuse as well as those suffered during relevant conduct surrounding that offense” qualify as serious bodily injury under the Harm Definition; and (4) the serious-bodily- injury enhancement can apply to a sexual abuse offender convicted under convicted under § 2241, but it must be based on the fact that the victim’s injuries meet § 1B1.1’s Harm Definition. Because Scott made no argument that the district court failed to apply the Harm Definition or that the victim’s injuries resulting from the sexual abuse or from Scott’s other conduct surrounding the offense failed to meet the Harm Definition, the panel concluded that Scott failed to show that the district court erred in applying the serious-bodily-injury enhancement.
The panel addressed Scott’s other challenges in a concurrently filed memorandum disposition.
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.