MEMORANDUM **

Appellants Cecilio Caicedo-Cuero and Juan Caicedo-Rengifo appeal their convic *364 tions under the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (“MDLEA”), 46 U.S.C. § 70508. Appellants argue that the district court erred when it determined that there was a sufficient nexus to support constitutional jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

We review de novo a district court’s determination of constitutional jurisdiction under the MDLEA. United States v. Perlaza, 439 F.3d 1149, 1160 n. 13 (9th Cir. 2006). We review the district court’s findings of fact for clear error. United States v. Khan, 35 F.3d 426, 430 (9th Cir. 1994).

The parties disagree over which standard of review should apply to the district court’s finding that the cocaine was destined for the United States. Under any standard of review, the district court correctly found that the cocaine was destined for the United States. The district court properly relied on the testimony of the Government’s expert witness, Agent Michael Wasser. That testimony established by a preponderance of the evidence that the cocaine was intended for distribution in the United States.

The district court’s finding that the cocaine was destined for the United States “provides a sufficient nexus between the defendants’ activities and the United States to satisfy the nexus requirement.” United States v. Klimavicius-Viloria, 144 F.3d 1249, 1259 (9th Cir. 1998). Thus, the district court correctly concluded that there was constitutional jurisdiction in this case.

AFFIRMED.