> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.bodiesburied.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# 18 U.S.C. 1163, Embezzlement and theft from Indian tribal organizations: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025
- URL: https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1163-case-outcomes/
- Published: 2026-11-03T06:55:50.000Z
- Updated: 2026-11-03T06:55:50.000Z
- Description: In fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 245 federal defendants had a case end with 18 U.S.C. 1163 as the most serious charge, and 215 (88%) were convicted. Most of those convictions came from guilty pleas: 212 (87%). Of those convicted, 92 (43%) received a prison term on this charge, and the median term was 9
- Author: Jocelyn C. Stewart
- Tags: Understanding Trends, Federal

[Trends](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/) › [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) › 18 U.S.C. 1163

**In brief:** In fiscal years 2016 to 2025, 245 federal defendants had a case end with 18 U.S.C. 1163 as the most serious charge, and 215 (88%) were convicted. Most of those convictions came from guilty pleas: 212 (87%). Of those convicted, 92 (43%) received a prison term on this charge, and the median term was 9 months.

Updated November 3, 2026 · Sources: U.S. Sentencing Commission and Federal Judicial Center, fiscal years 2016–2025

This post uses the Federal Judicial Center's records of 245 federal defendants whose cases ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025\. The series also draws on the U.S. Sentencing Commission's records of 659,036 people sentenced in fiscal years 2016 to 2025\. It is part of the [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) series, which builds on [Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/military-sentencing-guidelines-federal-system/). How the numbers were built: [How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-data-methodology/).

## Many Convictions, Fewer Prison Terms

The section heading in the U.S. Code reads "Embezzlement and theft from Indian tribal organizations". The figures here identify the statute by that heading alone.

Of the 215 defendants convicted under this section, 92 (43%) were sentenced to prison on that charge. The other convicted defendants did not receive a prison term on this charge in these records.

For defendants whose term was 1 month or more, the median prison term was 9 months. The median is the middle term when all of them are put in order. The figure does not include time imposed on any other count.

## Felony or Misdemeanor?

Not every case under this section was a felony. The records list 196 defendants (80%) charged at the felony level and 49 (20%) charged with a Class A misdemeanor. None were listed as a petty offense.

The level recorded is the level of the most serious charge at the end of the case. A charge can change between the first filing and the final judgment, and these records show only where it ended.

## How the 245 Cases Ended

A guilty plea ended 212 cases (87%). Dismissal ended 27 (11%). Only 6 (2%) went to trial.

The Federal Judicial Center counts every defendant whose case ended. That includes dismissals and acquittals, not just people who were sentenced. In these records, a dismissal can include a charge dropped on the government's motion after the defendant pleaded guilty in a different case.

Of the 6 trials, 3 ended in an acquittal. A jury decided 5 of them, and all 3 acquittals came from those jury trials. The 1 bench trial, decided by a judge, did not end in an acquittal. A count of 6 trials is too small to support a trial acquittal rate.

## Type of Counsel at the End of the Case

Federal public or community defenders represented 120 defendants (49%). CJA panel attorneys, who are private lawyers appointed by the court, represented 71 (29%). Private (retained) counsel represented 51 (21%).

Guilty pleas ended 85% of federal defender cases, 93% of CJA panel cases, and 84% of retained counsel cases. Dismissal was recorded in 16% of retained counsel cases, 13% of federal defender cases, and 3% of CJA panel cases. Retained counsel had no trials. Federal defenders and CJA panel attorneys each had 3.

These figures describe groups of cases and say nothing about the quality of any lawyer. Counsel type is recorded when the case ends. Defendants who hire a lawyer and defendants who are given one tend to face different charges and circumstances.

| Type of counsel at the end of the case | Defendants | Pleaded guilty | Dismissed | Trials | Acquitted at trial |
| -------------------------------------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | ------ | ------------------ |
| Federal public or community defender   | 120        | 85%            | 13%       | 3      | 1 (1 of 3)         |
| CJA panel attorney                     | 71         | 93%            | 3%        | 3      | 2 (2 of 3)         |
| Private (retained) counsel             | 51         | 84%            | 16%       | 0      | 0                  |

## Year by Year

Fiscal year 2016 had the most cases end under this section, with 43\. Fiscal year 2025 had the fewest, with 13\. Federal fiscal years begin in October, not January.

With yearly counts this small, a few cases can move a percentage a long way. In fiscal year 2022, 29% of the 21 cases were dismissed. Both acquittals in fiscal year 2019 came from its 2 trials. The table lists each year as recorded and is not a trend line.

| Fiscal year | Cases ended | Pleaded guilty | Dismissed | Trials | Acquitted at trial |
| ----------- | ----------- | -------------- | --------- | ------ | ------------------ |
| 2016        | 43          | 88%            | 12%       | 0      | 0                  |
| 2017        | 35          | 77%            | 17%       | 2      | 0 (0 of 2)         |
| 2018        | 29          | 97%            | 3%        | 0      | 0                  |
| 2019        | 31          | 77%            | 16%       | 2      | 2 (2 of 2)         |
| 2020        | 20          | 95%            | 5%        | 0      | 0                  |
| 2021        | 15          | 93%            | 7%        | 0      | 0                  |
| 2022        | 21          | 71%            | 29%       | 0      | 0                  |
| 2023        | 17          | 94%            | 6%        | 0      | 0                  |
| 2024        | 21          | 90%            | 5%        | 1      | 0 (0 of 1)         |
| 2025        | 13          | 92%            | 0%        | 1      | 1 (1 of 1)         |

## What This Count Leaves Out

The approved crosswalk names no close court-martial counterpart for this statute. The federal numbers are reported without a military comparison.

Each defendant is counted once, under the most serious charge at the end of the case. The records do not describe the facts of any case, the amount involved, or the evidence. They also cannot explain why a case was dismissed or why a sentence did or did not include prison.

### How We Counted

Every federal defendant whose case ended in fiscal years 2016 to 2025 and whose most serious charge at the end of the case (TTITLE1) was under 18 U.S.C. 1163, any subsection (245), Federal Judicial Center, counted as in the federal courts' Table D-4\. Type of counsel is TCOUNSEL; labels from the FJC criminal codebook. Section heading from the U.S. Code as published by the Office of the Law Revision Counsel (release point 119-136).

Federal fiscal years run from October 1 to September 30\. No person, judge, or lawyer is identified in any of these records.

### What to Keep in Mind

**Who is in each set of numbers.** The federal sentencing numbers come from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. They count only people who were convicted and sentenced in federal district court. People whose cases were dismissed or who were acquitted are not in them. The military numbers come from court-martial results, which include acquittals. To compare acquittal or dismissal rates, the federal side uses a different source: the Federal Judicial Center's case data, which counts every defendant whose case ended.

**How "plea" and "trial" are counted.** In the federal sentencing numbers, "trial" means the person was convicted after a trial, including people who pleaded guilty to some counts and went to trial on others. People acquitted at trial are not in these numbers at all (see "Who is in each set of numbers"). In the federal case data, the trial rate counts both convictions and acquittals at trial among all defendants whose cases ended, including dismissed cases. Military numbers count contested cases that reached a verdict. These denominators are not the same, and each post states the one it uses.

**Time periods.** Federal numbers are by federal fiscal year (October 1 to September 30), based on the sentencing date. The military numbers are by trial date. Neither source has the date of the offense, so a change in law shows up in either data set gradually.

**Type of counsel describes groups of cases, not lawyers.** The Federal Judicial Center records the type of counsel at the end of the case. Defendants who hire a lawyer differ from defendants who receive an appointed lawyer in their charges, criminal history, and circumstances, and some defendants change lawyers during a case. Differences in outcomes by type of counsel therefore cannot be credited to the type of lawyer.

## Related Analysis

- [Military Moves Toward Sentencing Guidelines to Mirror the Federal System](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/military-sentencing-guidelines-federal-system/) (the background article)
- [Federal Prosecution Analysis](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal/) (all federal posts)
- [How the Federal Comparison Data Was Built](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-data-methodology/) (sources and method)
- [18 U.S.C. 1152, Laws governing: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1152-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 1153, Offenses committed within Indian country: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1153-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 1201, Kidnapping: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1201-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [18 U.S.C. 1203, Hostage taking: How Federal Cases Ended, FY2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-statute-18-usc-1203-case-outcomes/) (same title of the U.S. Code)
- [Appointed vs. Retained Lawyers in Federal Criminal Cases: How Cases Ended, 2016–2025](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-appointed-vs-retained-counsel-outcomes/)
- [Are Courts-Martial More Likely to End in Acquittal Than Federal Trials?](https://www.bodiesburied.com/trends/federal-trial-acquittal-rates-vs-courts-martial/)
- [U.S. Sentencing Commission, Individual Offender Datafiles](https://www.ussc.gov/research/datafiles/commission-datafiles?ref=bodiesburied.com) (source)
- [Federal Judicial Center, Integrated Database (criminal defendants)](https://www.fjc.gov/research/idb?ref=bodiesburied.com) (source)

**About the author.** Jocelyn C. Stewart is a retired Army JAG with more than 24 years of trying courts-martial and more than 200 jury trials. She hosts *Where All The Bodies Are Buried* and runs the [Law Office of Jocelyn C. Stewart](https://www.ucmj-defender.com/?ref=bodiesburied.com). This analysis is for education and information only. It is not legal advice, and every case is different.