Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie David APPLEWHITE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-02
Citations: 368 F. App'x 790
Docket Number: No. 09-30221
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie David APPLEWHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 790–790

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie David APPLEWHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-30221.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 16, 2010.
Filed March 2, 2010.
Jeffrey S. Sweet, Assistant U.S., Office of U.S. Attorney, Eugene, OR, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Bryan E. Lessley, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDOR — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Eugene, OR, for Defendant-Appellant.
Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
Willie David Applewhite appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Applewhite contends that the federal bank robbery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a), lacks a sufficient nexus to interstate commerce because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation does not insure banks against theft or robbery, and therefore bank robberies do not cause any loss to the federal government. This contention lacks merit. See United States v. Blajos, 292 F.3d 1068, 1071-72 (9th Cir.2002); United States v. Harris, 108 F.3d 1107, 1109 (9th Cir.1997).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.