Chillemi

MEMORANDUM **

Phillip James Chillemi appeals from his 240-month sentence and jury-trial conviction for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113 (a), and the revocation of his supervised release, resulting in a 24-month sentence. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm the district court’s judgment in 04-10464, and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm in 04-10465.

In 04-10464, Chillemi contends that (1) his right to due process was violated because the government did not prove that he robbed the bank by intimidation as required; (2) the district court erred in admitting opinion testimony of a lay person in violation of Federal Rules of Evidence (“FRE”) 701 and 403; (3) the district court erred in denying his Faretta request to represent himself; and (4) he should receive a limited remand under United States v. Ameline, 409 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir.2005) (en bane).

First, because caselaw is clear that express threats or threatening movements are not required to demonstrate “intimidation,” we reject Chillemi’s contention that the government failed to prove this element of bank robbery. See United States v. Hopkins, 703 F.2d 1102,1103 (9th…