22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T40b,MEMORANDUM Francisco De La Concha-Ocampo appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for at tempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. De La Concha contends that the district court erred by declining to give a theory of defense jury instruction. This contention lacks merit. The instruction given by the district court covered De La Concha’s theory of defense because it instructed the jury that he must have intended to cross the border to be free to go at large within the United States. Thus, the district court’s failure to give De La Concha’s requested instruction also did not impair his ability to present a defense. See United States v. White, 974 F.2d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Lombera-Valdovinos, 429 F.3d 927, 928-29 (9th Cir.2005). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T438,

MEMORANDUM

Francisco De La Concha-Ocampo appeals from the 42-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for at tempted entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

De La Concha contends that the district court erred by declining to give a theory of defense jury instruction. This contention lacks merit. The instruction given by the district court covered De La Concha’s theory of defense because it instructed the jury that he must have intended to cross the border to be free to go at large within the United States. Thus, the district court’s failure to give De La Concha’s requested instruction also did not impair his ability to present a defense. See United States v. White, 974 F.2d 1135, 1139 (9th Cir.1992); see also United States v. Lombera-Valdovinos, 429 F.3d 927, 928-29 (9th Cir.2005).

AFFIRMED.

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