MEMORANDUM **

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 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 *271 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.