United States v. Cecilia Gardipee

MEMORANDUM

Cecilia Rose Gardipee appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 160-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for assault resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 (a), 113(a)(6), and 3559(f)(3). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Gardipee contends that, because she in an Indian convicted under the Indian Major Crimes Act, the district court, did not have jurisdiction to impose a sentence above 120 months under 18 U.S.C. § 3559 (f)(3) and instead was limited to the 120-month maximum set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 113 (1)(6). We review de novo a district court’s assumption of jurisdiction. United States v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir.2008). The plain language of 18 U.S.C. § 1153 (a) makes it clear that the district court had jurisdiction to apply the higher penalty ranges in § 3559(f)(3). Section 1153(a) provides that any Indian who com mits against another Indian within Indian country a felony assault under section 113 “shall be subject to the same law and penalties as all other persons committing” such an offense, and that the United States has exclusive jurisdiction in such…