The court said: The term "Indian reservation" is not defined by statute. However, the Supreme Court in United States v. John, 437 U.S. 634, 649, 98 S.Ct. 2541, 2549, 57 L.Ed.2d 489 (1978), suggested that land "declared by Congress to be held in trust by the Federal Government for the benefit of the . . . Indians ... [is a] 'reservation,' at least for the purposes of federal criminal jurisdiction [under 18 U.S.C. § 1153]." Similarly, the Supreme Court in United States v. Pelican, 232 U.S. 442, 449, 34 S.Ct. 396, 399, 58 L.Ed. 676 (1914), stated the principal test as whether the land "had been validly set apart for the use of the Indians as such, under the superintendence of the Government." Accord Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes v. State of Oklahoma, 618 F.2d 665, 667-68 (10th Cir. 1980) (<HOLDING>). United States v. Sohappy, supra at 822. The
holding that congress which regulated the introduction of alcoholic beverages in indian country could validly delegate to indian tribes its authority to regulate that subject matter because indian tribes themselves possessed independent authority over the subject matter holding that lands held in trust by the united states for the tribes are indian country within the meaning of  1151a holding that indian tribes lack tribal jurisdiction over crimes committed by nonmember indians within the tribes reservation holding indian tribes subject to gamblingrelated taxes from which states are exempt recognizing lands taken into trust by the bia under  5 of the ira are indian country and as a general rule indian country falls under the primary civil criminal and regulatory jurisdiction of the federal government and the resident tribe rather than the states