Lewis Gilmore Hurst has appealed his conviction of three counts of bank robbery *410 by force, violence, and intimidation (counts 1, 4, and 7), three counts of using, carrying, and brandishing a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence (counts 2, 5, and 8), and three counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (counts 3, 6, and 9). After the district court refused to permit Hurst to present an insanity defense, Hurst maintained his not guilty plea, stipulated to the facts alleged by the Government in the indictment, and was convicted by the district court following a bench trial.

Hurst contends that his inculpatory stipulation was tantamount to a guilty plea and should have been accompanied by the protections of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11. Because this issue was not asserted below, our review is for plain error. See United States v. Castro-Trevino, 464 F.3d 536, 541 (5th Cir. 2006). The issue raised by Hurst was rejected by the court in United States v. Robertson, 698 F.2d 703, 704-10 (5th Cir. 1983). Hurst has not shown that Robertson should be distinguished or that his substantial rights were affected by any error in accepting his inculpatory stipulation. See Castro-Trevino, 464 F.3d at 541. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.