States v. Lawrence, 51 F.3d 150, 152 (8th Cir.1995); see also United States v. Torres, 733 F.2d 449, 456 (7th Cir.1984) (approving consideration of whether a person is recognized as an Indian by an Indian tribe, or by the federal government, and whether a person resides on an Indian reservation and holds himself out as an Indian). 4 . See, e.g., United States v. Antelope, 430 U.S. 641, 97 S.Ct. 1395, 51 L.Ed.2d 701 (1977) (noting that because § 1153 does not apply to many individuals who are racially to be classified as Indians, the government offered proof that the defendants are enrolled members of the Coeur d’Alene Tribe and thus not emancipated from tribal relations; declining to reach question whether nonenrolled Indians may ever be subject to § 1153); Lawrence, 51 F.3d at 152-54 (<HOLDING>); United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314, 1319
holding that alleged victim was nonindian given that she was not an enrolled member of the oglala sioux tribe or any other tribe and wasnt eligible for enrollment because she had not completed the requirements for tribal enrollment the medical services she had received from the indian health service were not in her own right the fact that the oglala sioux tribe had taken custody and placed the victim under the care of her grandmother an enrolled member was too insignificant an involvement to show tribal recognition as the victim was not enrolled or eligible for enrollment and she did not attend powwows indian dances or other indian cultural events and lived offreservation except for a brief period before she was abused holding that neither the tribe or its tribal court was necessary to the determination of the tribal courts jurisdiction given that the district courts judgment would be binding on the absent party and they did not have a legally protected interest at issue noting that the tribe was not a party to a relevant agreement or treaty with any party to the suit holding that evidence of having filed an application for enrollment in the yurok tribe and previous entry on the pawnee tribal roll and the fact that defendants had held themselves out to be indians within the meaning of  1153 established indian status under  1153 holding that a statechartered corporation partially owned by an indian tribe was not a tribal agency holding that an indian tribe is subject to suit only where congress has authorized the suit or the tribe has waived its immunity