of Arkansas. 3 . Zamora-Garcia argues that the district court clearly erred by finding that he was nervous because Corporal Astin said at the same suppression hearing that Zamora-Garcia was relaxed as he observed the subsequent roadside search. We reject this argument. The district court chose to credit Corporal Astin’s assessment of Zamora-Garcia's demeanor and his view that Zamora-Garcia was nervous initially but later relaxed. As we often note, determinations of credibility are “virtually unassailable on appeal.” United States v. Freeman, 625 F.3d 1049, 1052 (8th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Guel-Contreras, 468 F.3d 517, 521 (8th Cir. 2006)). 4 . On appeal, Zamora-Garcia raises no challenge to Corporal Astin’s search of this bag. See Jimeno, 500 U.S. at 251, 111 S.Ct. 1801
holding that the driver of a car who had permission to use the car had standing to challenge its search holding that it was objectively reasonable for the police to conclude that the general consent to search the respondents car included consent to search a bag within that car holding that a detained defendants consent to search his car was voluntary even though the police did not tell him he was free to leave holding that where defendant consented to search of his car and stood by as agent conducted a thorough and systematic search which included removal of vehicles back seat and raising of cars rear quarter panel defendants failure to object to search indicated search was within scope of consent holding that it was unreasonable to believe that womans boyfriend had authority to consent to the search of her purse even though he had authority to consent to the search of the car in which it was kept