State of Wyoming v United States Environmental Protection Agency

Wyoming petitioned for review of EPA’s order designating certain lands inside an Indian reservation for Clean Air Act jurisdictional purposes. The panel, 2-1, granted the petition, vacated the boundary order and remanded. The majority held the Wind River Reservation was diminished by a 1905 act of Congress because it used “cede’ and “convey” which United States Supreme Court precedent holds is evidence of an intent to diminish and this conclusion is not changed by the lack of direct cash payment or the reservation of trust rights and the tribes on the reservation and the federal government had been negotiating a purchase and diminishment agreement for over a decade by the time the 1905 act passed and both the tribal leaders statements and legislative history confirm the intent of the act was to diminish the size of the reservation. It found the subsequent treatment of the ceded area was unclear as to intent and thus had little value in determining whether diminishment was intended. The dissent argued that the lack of a sum certain purchase price, placing the land in question in trust and not returning it to the public domain means the text does not create a diminishment, the surrounding history does not establish diminishment as the act does not give school land to Wyoming, a lease was given preferential treatment which is inconsistent with diminishment and there was a break between the agreement to sell in 1891 and the 1905 act and subsequent use is unclear.

United States v C.D.

C.D. appealed the denial of his motion for reduced sentence. The panel vacated the order and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. It held that under 18 USC 3582(c)(2), a sentence must be “based on” a sentencing guideline range for a reduction to be allowed, C.D.’s sentence was based on a mandatory 20 year sentence which an exception allowed to be reduced for substantial assistance and thus C.D. was not eligible for a reduction and the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion.