ORDER
The petition of the United States for rehearing is GRANTED. Our prior decision in this case, United States v. Kent, 912 F.2d 277 (9th Cir.1990), is vacated and the opinion is withdrawn. The matter is submitted on rehearing upon the briefs and record previously filed, and on the petition for rehearing and response thereto. The following opinion, issued upon rehearing, now represents the opinion and decision of this court.
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissents from this order; he would deny the petition for rehearing.
OPINION
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Lavon R. Kent, a Karuk Indian, appeals her conviction after a bench trial for unauthorized residential occupancy of land in a national forest. Kent contends that the district court erred in holding that she had no individual aboriginal rights to occupy the land in question. She also contends, for the first time on appeal, that she was entitled to occupy the land because the Department of the Interior had issued her a certificate of eligibility for an allotment in a national forest and because the relevant statute contemplated that an Indian would occupy the land before actually applying for an allotment. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
This case was submitted to the district court on stipulated facts. Kent is a member of the federally recognized Karuk Indian Tribe, for whom no reservation has been set aside. Any tribal aboriginal title that [1443]*1443the Karuks possessed in the area involved here has been extinguished; Congress has set aside compensation for the Tribe for the taking of its lands.
Kent moved onto a site at Sandy Bar Creek within the Klamath National Forest in February 1984, and has occupied and possessed that site since then. She has placed a trailer on the site, which she uses as her living quarters, and has planted a garden, which yields food for her sustenance. Kent excludes others from the site.
The United States Forest Service has not issued a special-use authorization to Kent. Nor has the Forest Service granted Kent or anyone else an allotment of land on this site. Kent, however, applied for and on July 18, 1982, received a certificate of eligibility from the Department of the Interior which certifies that she is a California Indian who is eligible to obtain an allotment of land on the public domain or in a national forest.
Kent’s great-grandmother lived at Sandy Bar Creek continuously until her death in 1870. From approximately 1870 to 1984, no blood relative of Kent lived at this site on Sandy Bar Creek. Kent’s mother was born one mile from Sandy Bar Creek and lived there until 1939. Relatives of Kent have allotments just west of Sandy Bar Creek. Every year “since time immemorial” Karuk Indians have traveled along a road immediately adjacent to where Kent resides on Sandy Bar Creek to participate in the Karuk ceremony of Pikiyowish (World Renewal).
On September 4, 1987, the district court found Kent guilty of unauthorized residential occupancy of national forest land, in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 551 (1985) and 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b) (1988).1 United States v. Kent, 679 F.Supp. 985 (E.D.Cal.1987). The district court subsequently sentenced Kent to a thirty-day jail term and ordered her to pay a $25 penalty assessment. The district court stayed its sentence pending Kent’s appeal of the judgment of conviction. On August 1, 1990, we issued a decision reversing the district court. United States v. Kent, 912 F.2d 277 (9th Cir.1990). We have today granted the government’s petition for rehearing, and vacated our earlier decision. We now affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction.
DISCUSSION
I. Individual Aboriginal Title
At trial, Kent defended her occupancy of this parcel of land as protected by individual aboriginal title. On appeal, Kent argues that the district court erred because its holding was based solely on the extinguishment of Kent’s tribal aboriginal rights, and failed to consider her claim of individual aboriginal right to this parcel of land. Kent relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Cramer v. United States, 261 U.S. 219, 43 S.Ct. 342, 67 L.Ed. 622 (1923), to support her claim to individual aboriginal title. We reject her contention.
The district court clearly addressed and ruled on Kent’s claims to individual aboriginal title to this parcel of land. After reciting a number of actions which extinguished Karuk tribal title, the district court went on to hold that “[ejven if these actions did not extinguish any right defendant may have as an individual (as opposed to as a Ka-ruk) to occupy a particular parcel of land, this case is still distinguishable from Cramer.” Kent, 679 F.Supp. at 987 (emphasis added).2
More important, the district court properly distinguished Kent’s individual ab[1444]*1444original title claim from those upheld in Cramer. As the district court stated, “[i]n Cramer, the Indians had lived on the same 175 acre parcel with their parents for over sixty years.” Id. Kent, by contrast, has occupied this parcel since 1984. After the parties briefed and argued this appeal, this court applied Cramer to another claim of individual aboriginal title, in United States v. Dann, 873 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890, 110 S.Ct. 234, 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989). In Dann, we held that such title can be established, under Cram-er, when an Indian can show that she or her lineal ancestors continuously occupied a parcel of land, as individuals, and that the period of continuous occupancy commenced before the land in question was withdrawn from entry for purposes of settlement. Dann, 873 F.2d at 1198-99.
Kent’s claim fails to meet the requirements established in Dann. She began her occupancy of this parcel of land in 1984, long after her tribe’s title to the land had been extinguished, and long after the land had been established as a National Forest,3 closed to public entry and settlement. No lineal ancestors immediately preceded her in occupancy. We are acutely aware of, and respect, the strong attachment that Kent has by virtue of family, culture and tradition to this parcel of land on Sandy Bar Creek. Cramer, however, permits us to protect such ties in the form of legal title only for those Indians who have maintained a presence on that land. We cannot, under Cramer and Dann, find such title in all Indians who attempt to return to their ancestral lands.
Kent argues for a different application of the rule in Cramer because, she asserts, the Forest was not closed to her because of the Forest Allotment Act and her certificate of eligibility for such an allotment, which she obtained in 1981.4 We question that her certificate, which refers to no specific site, confers upon Kent a right of entry to this particular parcel of land.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ORDER
The petition of the United States for rehearing is GRANTED. Our prior decision in this case, United States v. Kent, 912 F.2d 277 (9th Cir.1990), is vacated and the opinion is withdrawn. The matter is submitted on rehearing upon the briefs and record previously filed, and on the petition for rehearing and response thereto. The following opinion, issued upon rehearing, now represents the opinion and decision of this court.
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge, dissents from this order; he would deny the petition for rehearing.
OPINION
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Lavon R. Kent, a Karuk Indian, appeals her conviction after a bench trial for unauthorized residential occupancy of land in a national forest. Kent contends that the district court erred in holding that she had no individual aboriginal rights to occupy the land in question. She also contends, for the first time on appeal, that she was entitled to occupy the land because the Department of the Interior had issued her a certificate of eligibility for an allotment in a national forest and because the relevant statute contemplated that an Indian would occupy the land before actually applying for an allotment. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
This case was submitted to the district court on stipulated facts. Kent is a member of the federally recognized Karuk Indian Tribe, for whom no reservation has been set aside. Any tribal aboriginal title that [1443]*1443the Karuks possessed in the area involved here has been extinguished; Congress has set aside compensation for the Tribe for the taking of its lands.
Kent moved onto a site at Sandy Bar Creek within the Klamath National Forest in February 1984, and has occupied and possessed that site since then. She has placed a trailer on the site, which she uses as her living quarters, and has planted a garden, which yields food for her sustenance. Kent excludes others from the site.
The United States Forest Service has not issued a special-use authorization to Kent. Nor has the Forest Service granted Kent or anyone else an allotment of land on this site. Kent, however, applied for and on July 18, 1982, received a certificate of eligibility from the Department of the Interior which certifies that she is a California Indian who is eligible to obtain an allotment of land on the public domain or in a national forest.
Kent’s great-grandmother lived at Sandy Bar Creek continuously until her death in 1870. From approximately 1870 to 1984, no blood relative of Kent lived at this site on Sandy Bar Creek. Kent’s mother was born one mile from Sandy Bar Creek and lived there until 1939. Relatives of Kent have allotments just west of Sandy Bar Creek. Every year “since time immemorial” Karuk Indians have traveled along a road immediately adjacent to where Kent resides on Sandy Bar Creek to participate in the Karuk ceremony of Pikiyowish (World Renewal).
On September 4, 1987, the district court found Kent guilty of unauthorized residential occupancy of national forest land, in violation of 16 U.S.C. § 551 (1985) and 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b) (1988).1 United States v. Kent, 679 F.Supp. 985 (E.D.Cal.1987). The district court subsequently sentenced Kent to a thirty-day jail term and ordered her to pay a $25 penalty assessment. The district court stayed its sentence pending Kent’s appeal of the judgment of conviction. On August 1, 1990, we issued a decision reversing the district court. United States v. Kent, 912 F.2d 277 (9th Cir.1990). We have today granted the government’s petition for rehearing, and vacated our earlier decision. We now affirm the district court’s judgment of conviction.
DISCUSSION
I. Individual Aboriginal Title
At trial, Kent defended her occupancy of this parcel of land as protected by individual aboriginal title. On appeal, Kent argues that the district court erred because its holding was based solely on the extinguishment of Kent’s tribal aboriginal rights, and failed to consider her claim of individual aboriginal right to this parcel of land. Kent relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Cramer v. United States, 261 U.S. 219, 43 S.Ct. 342, 67 L.Ed. 622 (1923), to support her claim to individual aboriginal title. We reject her contention.
The district court clearly addressed and ruled on Kent’s claims to individual aboriginal title to this parcel of land. After reciting a number of actions which extinguished Karuk tribal title, the district court went on to hold that “[ejven if these actions did not extinguish any right defendant may have as an individual (as opposed to as a Ka-ruk) to occupy a particular parcel of land, this case is still distinguishable from Cramer.” Kent, 679 F.Supp. at 987 (emphasis added).2
More important, the district court properly distinguished Kent’s individual ab[1444]*1444original title claim from those upheld in Cramer. As the district court stated, “[i]n Cramer, the Indians had lived on the same 175 acre parcel with their parents for over sixty years.” Id. Kent, by contrast, has occupied this parcel since 1984. After the parties briefed and argued this appeal, this court applied Cramer to another claim of individual aboriginal title, in United States v. Dann, 873 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890, 110 S.Ct. 234, 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989). In Dann, we held that such title can be established, under Cram-er, when an Indian can show that she or her lineal ancestors continuously occupied a parcel of land, as individuals, and that the period of continuous occupancy commenced before the land in question was withdrawn from entry for purposes of settlement. Dann, 873 F.2d at 1198-99.
Kent’s claim fails to meet the requirements established in Dann. She began her occupancy of this parcel of land in 1984, long after her tribe’s title to the land had been extinguished, and long after the land had been established as a National Forest,3 closed to public entry and settlement. No lineal ancestors immediately preceded her in occupancy. We are acutely aware of, and respect, the strong attachment that Kent has by virtue of family, culture and tradition to this parcel of land on Sandy Bar Creek. Cramer, however, permits us to protect such ties in the form of legal title only for those Indians who have maintained a presence on that land. We cannot, under Cramer and Dann, find such title in all Indians who attempt to return to their ancestral lands.
Kent argues for a different application of the rule in Cramer because, she asserts, the Forest was not closed to her because of the Forest Allotment Act and her certificate of eligibility for such an allotment, which she obtained in 1981.4 We question that her certificate, which refers to no specific site, confers upon Kent a right of entry to this particular parcel of land. We need not decide that question, however, nor need we decide whether her certificate could create an exception to the rule that continuous occupancy must begin before the Forest was closed to public entry and settlement. Dann, 873 F.2d at 1197-98. Kent never raised any argument based on her certificate in the district court. For reasons explained immediately below, we decline to entertain this argument, raised for the first time on appeal.
II. Kent’s Right to an Allotment
Kent argues that she cannot be guilty of unlawful occupancy of forest land because her occupancy was “otherwise authorized by Federal law or regulation.” 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b). The authorization, she argues, is contained in her certificate of eligibility for an allotment pursuant to the Forest Allotment Act of 1910, 25 U.S.C. § 337. Because that Act permits the Secretary of Agriculture, “in his discretion,” to make allotments of national forest land to eligible Indians “occupying” the land, Kent argues that she is entitled to establish a residence at a location of her choice, and then to apply for an allotment.
[1445]*1445Kent did not raise this argument in district court, and decision of this question involves issues of statutory interpretation and regulatory authority difficult to decide on this undeveloped record.5 We will normally not consider on appeal an argument not raised in district court; one exception occurs when review of a newly presented issue is essential “to prevent a miscarriage of justice.” United States v. Greger, 716 F.2d 1275, 1277 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1007, 104 S.Ct. 1002, 79 L.Ed.2d 234 (1984). We find no such miscarriage of justice here. At least to the time of argument, Kent had made no attempt to apply for an allotment. Nor had the Secretary made, or been called upon to make, the determination that the land in issue was more valuable for agricultural or grazing purposes than for timber, a prerequisite to allotment of the parcel under section 337. We see no reason to deviate from our normal rule precluding review of issues not raised in the district court.6
III. Whether 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b) Includes a Mens Rea Element
There is one issue, however, that we address even though Kent did not raise it in the district court. That is the question whether there is any “mens rea” required to establish a violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.-10(b). We address that issue now because we addressed it in our prior opinion, after ordering additional briefing on the question. Concern over our treatment of the issue led to the government’s petition for rehearing, and to our granting of that petition. We now hold that section 261.10(b) does not contain a mens rea element.7
Section 261.10(b) states;
The following are prohibited:
(b) Taking possession of, occupying, or otherwise using National Forest System lands for residential purposes without a special-use authorization, or as otherwise authorized by Federal law or regulation.
36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b) (1990).
Our determination that there is no mens rea element contained in this regulation is compelled by our decision in United States v. Wilson, 438 F.2d 525 (9th Cir.1971), which interpreted a similar Forest Service regulation, 26 C.F.R. § 261.6(a). That regulation states;
[1446]*1446The following are prohibited:
(a) Cutting or otherwise damaging any timber, tree, or other forest product, except as authorized by a special-use authorization, timber sale contract, or Federal law or regulation.
In Wilson, we held that willfulness is not an element of the offense of violating section 261.6(a), noting that
[t]here is reason to believe that the omission of mens rea was intentional. The necessity of proving in each instance that the trespasser knew that he had crossed the often poorly marked boundaries of a national forest might make the regulatory scheme excessively difficult to enforce.
Wilson, 438 F.2d at 625.
We do not see how section 261.10(b) can be distinguished from section 261.6(a) in regard to this issue. The interpretation Kent urges would not only apply to situations as sympathetic as hers,8 but to the enforcement of this regulation against any person occupying land in any federal forest. Such an interpretation would, indeed, “make the regulatory scheme excessively difficult to enforce.” Id.
Strict criminal liability is strong medicine,9 and, accordingly, we have read criminal intent requirements into some Forest Service regulations, where their language remotely suggested it. In United States v. Semenza, 835 F.2d 223 (9th Cir.1987), we interpreted another Forest Service regulation as containing a requisite element of willfulness. That regulation, 36 C.F.R. § 261.7(a), prohibits “allowing unauthorized livestock to enter or be in the National Forest System.” We construed “allowing” as implying a mental element, a permission, and required the government to prove that the violator willfully allowed or willfully failed to prevent the cattle from entering the forest. Id. at 225-25. Also, in United States v. Launder, 743 F.2d 686, 689 (9th Cir.1984), we interpreted a statute making it a crime to “permit” or “suffer” a fire to spread out of control in a national forest to require proof of a willful act or willful failure to act. We pointed out that the words “permit” or “suffer” were “not the language of strict liability.” Id.
The present case, however, cannot be controlled by Semenza or Launder because section 261.10(b) contains no similar language implying a requisite state of mind. Like the language construed in Wilson, the language of section 261.10(b) speaks solely of action, with no reference to volition. We do not see how one who wanders onto a national forest and cuts trees can be held strictly liable when one who wanders on and establishes a residence is not. We conclude, therefore, that section 261.10 does not require violations to be “knowing” or “willful”; there is no criminal intent element in the crime defined by that regulation.
CONCLUSION
The judgment of the district court convicting Kent of violation of 36 C.F.R. § 261.10(b) is
AFFIRMED.