Norment

*655 MEMORANDUM **

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

A district court’s denial of a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo on appeal. 1 The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error.

The district court correctly concluded that Delvecchio Norment (“Norment”) knowingly and voluntarily consented to the search of the car. 3 After considering the relevant factors, the district court concluded that Norment’s consent was voluntary and valid. This determination was sufficiently supported by evidence in the record and therefore was not clearly erroneous. The district court found that although Norment had been seized at the time he gave consent, he had merely been detained, and was not under arrest or in custody. We have reviewed de novo the determination that the seizure did not exceed the bounds of a stop and become a de facto arrest, 4 and we concur with the district court on the issue. In addition, the district court accurately found that the officers did not have their guns drawn when they requested Norment’s consent to search, and that the officers did not read Norment his Miranda rights until after conducting the search. 5…