sentences and separate special assessments for Counts 5 and 6. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment in its entirety. 1 . Because an agent testified that he asked for permission to enter and Kheir admitted them, this holding does not conflict with the Ninth Circuit case Danhach cites in support of his challenge. Cf. United States v. Shaibu, 920 F.2d 1423, 1428 (9th Cir.1990) ("We hold that in the absence of a specific request by police for 52 (5th Cir.1983) (upholding a finding that a defendant orally consented to an X-ray despite his refusal to sign a written consent form, when he did not resist being X-rayed and chose not to testily at the suppression hearing); United States v. Garner, 120 F.3d 266, at *1 (5th Cir.1997) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). Kheir eventually spoke to an attorney and
holding that district court did not clearly err in declining to credit prisoners testimony about exhaustion holding that a district court did not clearly err in finding consent where two agents testified that the defendant orally consented but the defendant denied having orally consented and would not sign a written consent form holding refusal to sign hospital waiver of liability form is not a refusal under section 1547 holding that a refusal to sign an implied consent form is not a refusal to submit to a breathalyzer test for purposes of section 1547 holding that a district court did not clearly err in crediting agents testimony that a defendant had orally consented despite his refusal to sign consent form