Arnett

MEMORANDUM **

Timothy Wayne Arnett appeals pro se his conviction of armed bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a) and (d), and use of a firearm during a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c), for seven armed bank robberies that occurred in California and another in Oregon. 1 Arnett argues that his convictions should be reversed as a result of a multitude of individual errors, or as a result of their cumulative effect. In a separate published opinion filed contemporaneously with this disposition, we address Arnett’s argument that the district court erred in applying collateral estoppel to bar relitigation of Arnett’s affirmative defense. We decide Arnett’s remaining arguments here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

Arnett contends that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the bank robberies. 18 U.S.C. § 2113 . We review de novo. United States v. Errol D., Jr., 292 F.3d 1159, 1161 (9th Cir.2002). Arnett argues that federal jurisdiction is not conferred by virtue of the fact that the bank is FDIC-insured; rather, he argues that federal jurisdiction depends on whether the money taken is insured. Because FDIC…