With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Serv. v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1057, 104 S.Ct. 3479, 82 L.Ed.2d 778 (1984) (noting the different opinions among the circuits on this issue). The Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits have rejected the notion that § 1326 sets out an offense that continues after an alien has been initially found. Santana-Castellano, 74 F.3d at 598; Rivera-Ventura, 72 F.3d at 282; DiSantillo, 615 F.2d at 134. The Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have not explicitly addressed this issue but have indicated that a defendant is “found” at the point federal agents have either actual or constructive knowledge of his illegal presence in the country. Clarke, 312 F.3d at 1347-48; Bencomo-Castillo, 176 F.3d at 1304; Gomez, 38 F.3d at 1037; see also United States v. DeLeon, 444 F.3d 41, 52-53 (1st Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). The Fourth Circuit agrees with the Seventh

A: holding that the judge and jury may rely upon common knowledge and experience without proof
B: recognizing theory of constructive possession
C: holding that trial court erred by granting a directed verdict on statute of limitations defense and remanding for a new trial on the statute of limitations only
D: holding without adopting the constructive knowledge theory that a defendant cannot rely on the statute of limitations where deception by the alien allowed him to avoid detection by federal authorities
D.