when an arrest takes place is generally a question of fact, and this court accepts a district court’s purely factual findings unless clearly erroneous. However, in reviewing a district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on live testimony at a suppression hearing, we do not readily accept a district court’s factual findings if they are influenced by an incorrect view of law. See United States v. Gallo, 927 F.2d 815, 819 (5th Cir.1991) (“In reviewing the district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on live testimony at a suppression hearing, we must accept the district court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of the law.”) (emphasis added); United States v. Muniz-Melchor, 894 F.2d 1430, 1433-34 (5th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 495 U.S. 923, 110 S.Ct. 1957,
holding that when reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the government recognizing that the bia must defer to the factual findings of the ij unless they are clearly erroneous holding that in ruling on a summaryjudgment motion record evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to nonmovant holding that we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party holding that the trial courts purely factual findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of the law and the evidence must be viewed most favorable to the party prevailing below