United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Charles Frederick Walker, Defendant-appellant, 5 F.3d 544 (9th Cir. 1993)

The district court did not err in concluding the government proved the victim banks were federally insured. Though the prosecutor offered FDIC certificates dated before the robbery, he also offered testimony of bank employees to confirm that the bank was FDIC-insured during the robbery, Gov't ER at 8, 58. Such uncontradicted testimony establishes this element of the offense. United States v. Campbell, 616 F.2d 1151, 1153 (9th Cir. 1980).

Nor did the district court err in refusing to give the special "Telfaire" jury instruction that defense counsel requested. See United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552, 558-59 (D.C. Cir. 1972). " [T]rial courts need not give the Telfaire instruction when the matter is covered by simpler instructions," United States v. Field, 625 F.2d 862, 872 (9th Cir. 1980).

Finally, since the Supreme Court has resolved the circuit split in the Ninth Circuit's favor, see Deal v. United States, 113 S. Ct. 1993, 1996 (1993), the district court did not err in relying on United States v. Neal, 976 F.2d 601, 602 (9th Cir. 1992). In fact, the Supreme Court has vacated and remanded the case on which petitioner relies. See United States v. Abreu, 113 S. Ct. 2405 (1993).

AFFIRMED