Whether federal sentencing courts should treat a sentence that is optional in state court as mandatory in federal court under the Indian Major Crimes Act just because the state sentencing statute uses language traditionally associated with a mandatory minimum

Question Presented This case presents a legal question under the Indian Major Crimes Act (IMCA), 18 U.S.C. § 1153, that is increasingly important in the wake of McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), and that the Tenth Circuit has resolved inconsistently depending on whether the case arises from Indian Country in New Mexico or Indian Country in Oklahoma. In New Mexico cases, the Tenth Circuit holds that an apparent statutory minimum for a state crime that a state court would be permitted to suspend or defer is not an actual minimum that must be imposed in federal court under the IMCA. But in Oklahoma cases, like this one, the Tenth Circuit refuses to look to whether a state court could suspend or defer the sentence and holds that an apparent minimum is mandatory in federal court based solely on the fact that the sentencing statute uses language traditionally associated with a mandatory minimum. The question presented is whether federal sentencing courts should treat a sentence that is optional in state court as mandatory in federal court under the IMCA just because the state sentencing statute uses language traditionally associated with a mandatory minimum. i