United States v. Thunder, 05-3446.

Decision Date24 April 2006
Docket NumberNo. 05-3447.,No. 05-3446.,05-3446.,05-3447.
Citation445 F.3d 1062
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marcia BRAVE THUNDER, also known as Marcia Bailey, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rinissa Fitzpatrick, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Kent M. Morrow, Bismarck, ND, for appellant.

Steven Balaban, Bismarck, ND, for Fitzpatrick.

Rick L. Volk, Asst. U.S. Attorney, Bismarck, ND, for appellee

Before MURPHY, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Marcia Brave Thunder, a/k/a Marcia Bailey, and Rinissa Fitzpatrick of theft from an Indian tribal organization, conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, and making false statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The district court1 sentenced Brave Thunder to 15 months and Fitzpatrick to 21 months and ordered restitution from both. Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick appeal, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and their sentences. We affirm.

A federal grand jury indicted Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick on one count of theft from the Long Soldier District of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1163 and 2, conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States by stealing and misapplying funds belonging to the Tribe, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and making false statements to the FBI about tribal consultant agreements and their own consultant status, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

At trial the government introduced evidence that Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick held several elected positions in the Long Soldier District of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. During the time period relevant to these appeals, Fitzpatrick, who had been elected secretary for the District, served as interim treasurer because the elected treasurer had resigned. Brave Thunder served as a member of the Business Committee, a subcommittee of the Planning Commission.

When Cheryl Penny was appointed treasurer in May 2003, she sought to obtain the District's financial records from Fitzpatrick but learned that the records had been delivered by Fitzpatrick and Brave Thunder's mother to a certified public accountant, Paul East, for a review ordered by the District. After an investigation was initiated against District officers, the records were turned over to FBI Special Agent Hal Stutsman who reviewed them with Penny. Stutsman and Penny discovered a number of consultant agreements which had been executed in 2002 authorizing payment by the District of thousands of dollars to Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick. They also found files containing consultant offer letters for Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick, consultant agreements, returned checks, and worksheets tracking the consultant payments. Tribal law prohibited elected officials from entering into contracts with the District, and consulting agreements needed approval from the District Council and the Tribal Council. None of the consulting agreements had gotten such approval.

Stutsman created a summary of the checks issued pursuant to the consulting agreements to Fitzpatrick and Brave Thunder between September 1, 2002 and March 31, 2003, showing payments of $71,000 to Fitzpatrick and $40,100 to Brave Thunder. Stutsman tracked $32,100 of the consulting money paid to Fitzpatrick and $23,900 of that paid to Brave Thunder to their respective bank accounts. Stutsman noted discrepancies between the District Planning Commission minutes which had been delivered to Paul East and the official versions filed with the Tribal Council. Only the unofficial minutes contained motions for the approval of consultant agreements for Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick; the Planning Commission members shown as having made the motions denied it.

When Stutsman confronted Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick, Brave Thunder said she had not signed a consultant agreement and did not recall being paid pursuant to one. Fitzpatrick said she had not been hired as a consultant and claimed not to have seen any consultant agreements. Stutsman had exemplars of the handwriting of Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick reviewed by a trained handwriting examiner. The examiner opined that it was "highly probable" that Brave Thunder's signatures on the consultant agreement and the exemplars were authored by the same person and stated without reservation that the Fitzpatrick signatures on the agreement and the exemplars had been written by the same individual.

The jury convicted Brave Thunder and Fitzpatrick on all three counts. At sentencing the district court imposed two level enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 for both defendants based on their abuse of positions of trust. The court noted that Fitzpatrick was an elected official who had served as a member of the Board and Planning Commission, had authority to sign checks, and had signed both the checks and consulting agreements at issue. It also observed that Brave Thunder was a member of the Business Committee, bore responsibility for planning and recommending approval of expenditure of funds, and executed the false consulting agreements. The court also found that an 8 level increase to Fitzpatrick's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • United States v. Pruett
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit
    • May 15, 2012
    ...v. Spear, 491 F.3d 1150, 1153 (10th Cir.2007); United States v. Andrews, 484 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062[, 1065] (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517, 535–36 (4th Cir.2005); United States v. Britt, 388 F.3d 1369, 1371 (11th ......
  • U.S. v. Banks
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • January 9, 2008
    ...interpretation and application of the sentencing guidelines de novo and its factual findings for clear error." United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 2006). Banks challenges the assessment of two criminal history points that resulted from several driving convictions i......
  • U.S. v. Sicher
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • August 7, 2009
    ...States v. Spear, 491 F.3d 1150, 1153 (10th Cir.2007); United States v. Andrews, 484 F.3d 476, 478 (7th Cir.2007); United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir.2006); United States v. Ebersole, 411 F.3d 517, 535-36 (4th Cir.2005); United States v. Britt, 388 F.3d 1369, 1371 (11th C......
  • U.S. v. Cruz-Zuniga
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit
    • July 1, 2009
    ...at sentencing so long as the district court understands that the sentencing guidelines are advisory only." United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir.2006). Under an advisory sentencing regime, "the district court is entitled to determine sentences based upon judge-found f......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
4 books & journal articles
  • FEDERAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 613, 614 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that “any offense” means any federaloffense); United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 2006) (same).47. See, e.g., United States v. Munoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (conspiracy to commit bank fraud);United......
  • Federal Criminal Conspiracy
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • July 1, 2022
    ...v. Gonzales, 437 F.3d 613, 614 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating that “any offense” means any federal offense); United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 2006) (same). 50. See, e.g. , United States v. Munoz-Franco, 487 F.3d 25 (1st Cir. 2007) (conspiracy to commit bank fraud); Un......
  • Federal criminal conspiracy.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, March 2008
    • March 22, 2008
    ...v. Gonzalez, 437 F.3d 613, 614 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating the "offense clause" means any federal offense); United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding because the indictment charged a violation of a federal offense, it satisfied the "offense clause" of [sectio......
  • Federal criminal conspiracy.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 47 No. 2, March 2010
    • March 22, 2010
    ...v. Gonzalez, 437 F.3d 613, 614 (7th Cir. 2006) (stating the "offense clause" means any federal offense); United States v. Brave Thunder, 445 F.3d 1062, 1065 (8th Cir. 2006) (holding because the indictment charged a violation of a federal offense, it satisfied the "offense clause" of [sectio......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT