Frank Davis appeals his convictions for possession with intent to distribute approximately 47 kilograms of marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute more than 50 kilograms of marijuana. Davis contends the district court erred by denying his pre-trial motion to suppress his inculpatory statements. Davis asserts he made those statements without counsel present after his request that counsel be present before he spoke with law enforcement officers regarding this matter. The motion was denied, after a hearing, immediately prior to trial.
Our court will accept a district court’s factual findings based on live testimony at a suppression hearing “unless [they are] clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of the law”. United States v. Alvarez, 6 F.3d 287, 289 (5th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1010, 114 S.Ct. 1384, 128 L.Ed.2d 59 (1994). When a suppression motion is denied, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Government. E.g., United States v. Garza, 118 F.3d 278, 282-83 (5th Cir.1997).
Davis requested that counsel be present during his first meeting with Drug Enforcement Agency Agents regarding this matter, but he did not make any inculpatory statements at that time. Davis initiated his next conversation with DEA Agents, *394was informed of his Miranda rights prior to making any statements, and signed a Miranda waiver. Because Davis initiated the conversation during which he made the inculpatory statements, his right to counsel was not violated, even though he had previously requested counsel. See Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Mann v. Scott, 41 F.3d 968, 975-76 (5th Cir.1994).
AFFIRMED.