
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Francisco LAZO-ROMERO, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-50466.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 30, 2013.
    
    Filed Jan. 9, 2014.
    Jose Castillo, Assistant U.S., United States Department of Justice, San Diego, CA, Bruce R. Castetter, Assistant U.S., Michael G. Wheat, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Robert H. Rexrode, III, Law Offices of Robert H. Rexrode, San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN and BEA, Circuit Judges, and NAVARRO, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Defendant-Appellant David Francisco Lazo-Romero appeals his conviction of illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We affirm. Even if the delay in Lazo-Romero’s presentment to the magistrate was unreasonable or unnecessary under the circumstances of the case, see Corley v. United States, 556 U.S. 303, 129 S.Ct. 1558, 173 L.Ed.2d 443 (2009); United States v. Garcia-Hernandez, 569 F.3d 1100 (9th Cir.2009), any error was harmless. It is less probable than not that such error materially affected the verdict. United States v. Seschillie, 310 F.3d 1208, 1214 (9th Cir.2002).

Even without Lazo-Romero’s post-Miranda, pre-arraignment confession, an abundance of evidence supported the verdict that Lazo-Romero knowingly and illegally re-entered the United States. Border Patrol agents discovered Lazo-Romero three miles north of the border, in a desolate area in rough terrain, at night, carrying a backpack, and moving north. He attempted to avoid detection by hiding in brush. Immediately after being discovered, he admitted to being a national of El Salvador without permission to enter or remain legally in the United States. He had a lengthy immigration history, which included previous deportation. The government has met its burden to show a “fair assurance of harmlessness,” and that any error was harmless. Seschillie, 310 F.3d at 1214 (internal quotation marks omitted).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     