Stevens

MEMORANDUM *

Richard Dickie Stevens appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, we will not recount them here.

We review the lawfulness of a search or seizure de novo, United States v. Deemer, 354 F.3d 1130, 1132 (9th Cir.2004), and “accept a district court’s findings of fact at a suppression hearing unless they are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Huff-hines, 967 F.2d 314, 316 (9th Cir.1992). Clearly error review is highly deferential, and we will “accept the lower court’s findings of fact unless upon review we are left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. Doe, 155 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir.1998) (en banc).

The district court did not clearly err in crediting Officer Ahn’s description of Stevens’ actions. Defense counsel was able to highlight certain inconsistencies in the offi *598 cers’ testimony, but nothing in the record leaves us with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” Given that predicate, the district court did not err in concluding that the automobile was not seized when the…