Malaney

MEMORANDUM **

David Paul Malaney appeals his jury-trial conviction for aiding and abetting bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Malaney first contends that the government presented insufficient evidence to establish that the bank’s deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) at the time of the robbery. Even if Malaney properly preserved this contention, it fails because viewing the evidence, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the government, a rational trier of fact could have found this essential element of the crime proved beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Stoddard, 150 F.3d 1140, 1144 (9th Cir.1998); United States v. Phillips, 606 F.2d 884, 887 (9th Cir.1979) (“[Ujncon-tradicted testimony of a ranking official of the institution is sufficient to establish that the institution is federally insured.”).

Malaney also contends that his conviction must be reversed because the district court did not, sua sponte, dismiss a potential juror who, during voir dire, made equivocal statements concerning his ability to be…