With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". following a guilty plea to being found in the United States after having been previously deported, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Torres’ main contention is that the statute of limitations precludes prosecution for this offense because immigration authorities could have found him in 1989 after a diligent search. See 8 U.S.C. § 3282 (setting forth five-year limitation period for prosecution of non-capital offenses). We need not address this contention because the record establishes that Torres knowingly and voluntarily entered an unconditional guilty plea in which he admitted that he was “found in” the United States in 1999, within the limitations period. See United States v. Patterson, 230 F.3d 1168, 1171-72 (9th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Cortez, 973 F.2d 764, 766

A: holding that guilty plea admits all elements of offense
B: holding that a voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty is an admission of all the elements of a formal criminal charge
C: holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense
D: holding defendant by pleading guilty admits all essential elements of offense charged
A.