Gary David Lindsey appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of d-methamphetamine. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress his confession.
At the hearing on the motion to suppress, the district court, after hearing testimony, accepted the law enforcement agent’s version of events over that of Lindsey and his wife, finding that no coercion took place and that Lindsey’s confession was voluntary. We will not disturb the district court’s findings absent clear error. See United States v. Restrepo, 994 F.2d 173, 183 (5th Cir.1993). If a finding is based on oral testimony at a suppression hearing, the “clearly erroneous standard is particularly strong since the judge had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the witnesses.” See United States v. Shabazz, 993 F.2d 431, 438 (5th Cir.1993). Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err in determining that the confession was voluntarily given. See id.
AFFIRMED.