USA V. HENRY LOFTIES, No. 15-50270 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 09 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 15-50270 D.C. No. 5:14-cr-00087-JGB-1 v. MEMORANDUM* HENRY LOFTIES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Jesus G. Bernal, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 5, 2016** Pasadena, California Before: PREGERSON, D.W. NELSON, and OWENS, Circuit Judges. Henry Lofties appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, for bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). We reject Lofties’ challenges to the district court’s evidentiary rulings related to the requirement that the bank be insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”). The district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of either bank teller Marco Sabaja or vice president Ronald Gillman. See United States v. McFall, 558 F.3d 951, 960 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion); see also Fed. R. Evid. 602, 801(a). In addition, even if it violated the Confrontation Clause to admit the “Certificate of Proof of Insured Status” by FDIC executive Ralph E. Frable, any error was harmless in light of other evidence that the bank was insured by the FDIC at the time of the robbery. See United States v. Norwood, 603 F.3d 1063, 1068-69 (9th Cir. 2010) (setting forth harmless error standard). We also reject Lofties’ argument that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to find that the bank was insured by the FDIC. The amount of evidence required to establish that a bank was FDIC-insured at the time of a robbery is “minimal.” United States v. Ali, 266 F.3d 1242, 1244 (9th Cir. 2001). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, a rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that the bank was insured by the FDIC at the time of the robbery. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 (1979). AFFIRMED. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.