
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tawnya BEARCOMESOUT, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-30276
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 9, 2017 
    
    Filed August 17, 2017
    John David Sullivan, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Leif Johnson, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, Billings, MT, Kris Allen McLean, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Kris A McLean Law Firm, Florence, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Anthony R. Gallagher, Federal Public Defender, FDMT—Federal Defenders of Montana (Great Falls), Great Falls, MT, Joslyn Michelle Hunt, FDMT-Federal Defenders of Montana (Helena), Helena, MT, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: SCHROEDER, TASHIMA, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Bearcomesout’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Tawnya Bearcomesout appeals from the district court’s denial of her motion to dismiss the indictment and challenges her guilty-plea conviction for involuntary manslaughter, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153(a) and 1112(a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Bearcomesout argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred her successive homicide prosecutions by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and the United States government because the two entities are not separate sovereigns. This argument is foreclosed. See Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1863, 1870-72, 195 L.Ed.2d 179 (2016) (successive prosecutions for the same offense are not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause if brought by separate sovereigns, and Indian Tribes “count as separate sovereigns under the Double Jeopardy Clause”). Furthermore, Bearcomesout has not shown impermissible collusion between the United States government and the Northern Cheyenne Tribe such that an exception applies under Bartkus v. Illinois, 359 U.S. 121, 79 S.Ct. 676, 3 L.Ed.2d 684 (1959). See United States v. Lucas, 841 F.3d 796, 803 (9th Cir. 2016) (impermissible collusion occurs where “the prosecutors of one sovereign so thoroughly dominate or manipulate the prosecutorial machinery of the other sovereign that the latter retains little or no volition in its own proceedings” (internal quotations omitted)).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     