Nissan, and enter the Trooper’s patrol car. Gamez-Acuna likewise left the patrol ear without question when the Trooper said he was free to leave. He was able to communicate with the Trooper about numerous topics, including the reason for the stop, whether the Trooper was giving him a ticket, details about the Nissan, as well as his name, date of birth, travel plans, employment, family situation, and biographical information. When Gamez-Acuna did not understand, he said so and the Trooper followed up with additional questions until Gamez-Acuna registered his understanding. This evidence fully supports the district court’s finding that Gamez-Acuna understood sufficient English to freely and unequivocally consent to the search of the Nissan. See, e.g., Zubia-Melendez, 263 F.3d at 1162-63 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Corral, 899 F.2d 991, 994-95
holding that consent was valid despite close temporal proximity between the illegal entry and consent holding that consent is not a valid defense to hazing holding consent valid despite the defendants difficulty speaking and understanding english holding that when entry is demanded under color of office and consent is given in submission to authority rather than as an understanding and intentional waiver of a constitutional right consent is not voluntary holding the sale valid as between the original parties despite noncompliance with the act