Here is the opinion in United States v. Tadios.
The court’s syllabus:
The panel affirmed the district court’s inclusion in its loss calculation at sentencing the estimated salary paid to the defendant, the CEO of a federally-funded health care clinic located on the Chippewa Cree’s Rocky Boy Reservation, for time she spent visiting her husband when she claimed to be traveling on business. The defendant was convicted for converting federal funds for personal use, using federal funds for personal benefit, and misapplying clinic funds. The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that because she was an exempt employee, the Chippewa Cree suffered no loss in paying her full salary for when she was visiting her husband instead of performing clinic duties. The panel held that including in the loss calculation under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 the estimated value of the time the defendant should have reported as annual leave was not clear error. The panel addressed the defendant’s remaining arguments concerning her conviction and sentencing in a memorandum disposition
The Ninth Circuit’s unpublished memorandum decision on jurisdiction is here.
Tadios first argues that the federal courts lack jurisdiction because Tadios is an Indian and the acts took place on tribal land. We review criminal jurisdiction de novo. United States v. Begay, 42 F.3d 486, 497 (9th Cir. 1994). Tadios’s argument fails in light of more than a century of jurisprudence concluding that generally applicable provisions of the Federal Criminal Code govern prosecutions of crimes committed by Indians in Indian territory. See, e.g., United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 384-85 (1886) (finding that federal courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed by Indians on Indian territory).