United States v. Adam Travis Cullins

66 F.3d 336 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Adam Travis CULLINS, Defendant-Appellant. No. 95-35058. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Aug. 16, 1995. * Decided Sept. 8, 1995. Before: ALARCON, FERNANDEZ, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Adam Travis Cullins, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion. Cullins contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the government failed to prove that the banks he robbed were federally insured. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 . We review de novo the district court's denial of a Sec. 2255 motion, Sanchez v. United States, 50 F.3d 1448, 1451-52 (9th Cir.1995), and affirm. 3 To support a conviction for bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113 (a), the government must prove that the bank in question was federally insured. See 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2113…