Task: Text Completion
Input (English): § 371, and armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a)(d). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Collins contends that the district court grossly abused its discretion when it denied his Rule 35(a) motion. We disagree. The district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that the stipulation entered into by the parties and read to the jury provided sufficient evidence from which a rational juror could infer that the deposits of the banks were federally insured at the time of the offenses alleged in the indictment. See United States v. Chapel, 41 F.3d 1338, 1340 (9th Cir.1994) (stating that a bank official’s testimony is not required to prove the federally-insured status of a bank); United States v. Mathews, 833 F.2d 161,164 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an agreement may be inferred entirely from circumstantial evidence (B) holding that parties may stipulate to facts from which jurisdiction may be inferred (C) holding that a prosecutors motive may often be inferred from the totality of relevant facts (D) holding that fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence (E) holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
Output (English): (B)