Arvizu

MEMORANDUM **

This appeal comes before us on remand from the Supreme Court. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 , 122 S.Ct. 744 , 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). The Court reversed our prior decision and held that the border patrol agent who stopped Arvizu’s van had reasonable suspicion for doing so. Id. at 752-53; see also United States v. Arvizu, 232 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir.2000). In light of this holding, we must now determine whether Arvizu voluntarily consented to the search of his van.

Arvizu admits that he consented to the search; however, he contends that he did not do so voluntarily. Whether consent is voluntary is a determination we must make by evaluating the totality of the circumstances. United States v. Cannon, 29 F.3d 472, 477 (9th Cir.1994). This court has identified several factors that may indicate a lack of voluntariness, such as the person being in custody or the officer having his weapon drawn. See United States *874 v. Chan-Jimenez, 125 F.3d 1324, 1327 (9th Cir.1997).

In this instance, we cannot say that the district court’s finding that Arvizu voluntarily consented to the search of his van was clearly erroneous. Id. The district court found that the border…