Does aiding and abetting federal armed bank robbery constitute a serious or violent crime under the three strikes law?

Defendant argues substantial evidence does not support the conclusion that his prior convictions for aiding and abetting federal armed bank robbery constitute serious or violent felonies under the three strikes law. In support of his argument, defendant asserts the trial court was required to presume on this evidentiary record that his federal convictions were for the least offense punishable under the federal statute, which would not qualify as a serious felony under the three strikes law. (See People v. Leever (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 853, 872 [burglary type offenses described in the second paragraph of 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) would not constitute a serious felony for purposes of three strikes law], disapproved on another ground in People v. Ervin (2000) 22 Cal.4th 48, 91.) We disagree.