Is counsel ineffective for failing to argue that the evidence was insufficient to support an armed bank robbery conviction?

Neal next contends that counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for armed bank robbery under 18 U.S.C. 2113(a) because the prosecution failed to prove that the banks he robbed were federally insured. This contention lacks merit because the government presented bank tellers' uncontradicted testimony that the bank was federally insured. See United States v. Corbin, 972 F.2d 271, 272 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (bank employees' uncontradicted testimony sufficient to prove bank's insured status).