FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 07-50538
Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. CR-07-02561-TJW
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JUVENILE MALE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 13, 2010 **
Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Oscar F., a juvenile male, appeals from an adjudication of juvenile
delinquency, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 5032, after a finding of guilt by the district
court for multiple violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
U.S.C. § 1291. We may affirm on any ground supported by the record, Dittman v.
California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1027 n.3 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm.
Oscar F. contends the district court lacked jurisdiction over him because the
18 U.S.C. § 5032 certification was inaccurate. The parties do not dispute that the
state authorities did not prosecute Oscar F. for the instant offenses. A de novo
review of the record reveals that the United States Attorney accurately certified
that “the State of California does not have jurisdiction” over Oscar F. See United
States v. Juvenile Male, 595 F.3d 885, 891-95 (9th Cir. 2010) (concluding that
when the appropriate state prosecutor decides not to prosecute a particular juvenile
for the specific crime at issue, the state court never obtains jurisdiction over the
juvenile); United States v. Male Juvenile, 280 F.3d 1008, 1014 (9th Cir. 2002)
(stating standard of review). Accordingly, the district court properly exercised
jurisdiction over Oscar F.
AFFIRMED.
2 07-50538