MEMORANDUM
James Davis appeals his jury conviction of two counts of bank robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a). He advances three arguments for vacating the conviction, each of which is defeated by well-established precedent. The first argument— that the district court abused its discretion by declining to instruct the jury as to the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity — is foreclosed by Shannon v. United States, in which the United States Supreme Court cautioned that an instruction concerning the consequences of such a verdict “is not to be given as a matter of general practice.” 512 U.S. 573, 587, 114 S.Ct. 2419, 129 L.Ed.2d 459 (1994). The second argument — that the district court abused its discretion by declining to instruct the jury to consider the “perspective” of the bank tellers — is foreclosed by United States v. Alsop, in which we held that a jury must “focus its attention on the conduct of the defendant and not on the reaction of the victim.” 479 F.2d 65, 67 (9th Cir.1973). The third argument — that there was insufficient evidence of a taking by intimidation — is defeated by uncontested evidence that Davis presented the tellers with demand notes. See United States v. Hopkins, 703 F.2d 1102, 1103 (9th Cir.1983) (“[Tjhreats implicit in ... written and verbal demands for money provide sufficient evidence of intimidation to support [a] jury’s verdict.”).
The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.