MEMORANDUM *

Defendant Victor Canedo-Reyna appeals his conviction for illegal reentry in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. For the following reasons, we affirm.

1. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Proa-Tovar, 975 F.2d 592, 594 (9th Cir. 1992) (en banc), we hold that the district court properly denied Defendant’s collateral attack on the 1985 deportation order. *722 The court correctly held that Defendant had not exhausted his administrative remedies. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326(d)(1) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies). As the government concedes, Defendant could still file a motion to reopen, but he has not done so.

2. Reviewing de novo, United States v. Mosley, 465 F.3d 412, 414-15 (9th Cir. 2006), we hold that sufficient evidence supported the conviction. A reasonable juror could have concluded that Defendant was free from official restraint in the five-day period between his entry into the country and his interview, many miles from the border, with the testifying government agent. See United States v. Bello-Bahena, 411 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2005) (reaching the same conclusion on similar facts).

AFFIRMED.