
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Israel CORVERA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 15-50555
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted December 14, 2016 
    
    Filed December 21, 2016
    Helen H. Hong, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Daniel Earl Zipp, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Office of the US Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee
    Cassandra Lucinda Lopez, Attorney, Sarah Rose Weinman, Attorney, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant
    Before: WALLACE, LEAVY, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Israel Corvera appeals the district court’s revocation of supervised release. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Corvera contends that the district court erred by revoking his supervised release based on his commission of a new “found in” offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He first argues that the district court misinterpreted the law applicable to such offenses. Reviewing de novo, see United States v. Williams, 741 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2014), we conclude that the district court correctly determined that it could infer that Corvera entered the United States from unrebutted evidence showing that Corvera was found in Washington. See United States v. Quintana-Torres, 235 F.3d 1197, 1200 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] reasonable juror may well infer that the alien had the intention to be here when the alien is discovered at any location in the country other than the border”).

Corvera also argues that the government did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he entered the United States. The government presented evidence that Corvera was seen in the United States several miles south of the Canadian border, and nothing in the record indicates that he was intoxicated or under official restraint at the time he entered the United States from Mexico. Viewed in the light most favorable to the government, this evidence was .sufficient to support the district court’s finding that Corvera voluntarily entered the United States. See United States v. King, 608 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     