Unpublished Dispositionunited States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Barry Chaffen, Defendant-appellant, 856 F.2d 196 (6th Cir. 1988)

Before KENNEDY and WELLFORD, Circuit Judges; and HERMAN J. WEBER, District Judge.^* 

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the record and briefs, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

This pro se federal prisoner appeals the denial of his motion to vacate his sentence filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He claimed that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to sentence him because the United States allegedly failed to prove that the deposits of the First Tennessee Bank were federally insured at the time of the robbery.

Upon consideration, we agree with the district court's disposition of this case. Defendant was convicted and sentenced because he pled guilty to the charge of aiding and abetting bank robbery. He cannot logically claim that he was incorrectly sentenced by the district court because the prosecutor failed to prove that the bank was federally insured at the time of the crime.

Accordingly, the district court's order is hereby affirmed. Rule 9(b) (5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.