consent is obtained during custody, see Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 240, n. 29, 93 S.Ct. 2041, ‘custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate ... coerced ... consent to search.’ ” Barnett, 989 F.2d at 555 (quoting United States v. Watson, 423 U.S. 411, 424, 96 S.Ct. 820, 46 L.Ed.2d 598 (1976)). Here, Agent Blanco’s testimony contradicted Merced-Morales’ allegation of being coerced and held at gunpoint. The trial court observed both witnesses and determined that Agent Blanco’s testimony was more credible. Where, as here, “there are two competing interpretations of the evidence, the district court’s choice of one of them cannot be clearly erroneous.” United States v. Cruz Jiménez, 894 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1990); see also United States v. Zapata, 18 F.3d 971, 974 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that appellant’s
holding total deference is given to the trial courts determination of historical facts supported by the record especially when the trial courts findings turn on evaluating a witnesss credibility and demeanor recognizing that we can consider trial evidence in reviewing the denial of a pretrial suppression motion recognizing trial courts ability to ascertain the demeanor and credibility of expert witness holding trial judges denial of a suppression motion is entitled to considerable deference because he had opportunity to hear testimony observe witness demeanor and evaluate facts first hand recognizing the considerable deference afforded to regulations concerning medicare