to enter a home, a defendant's failure to object to such entry is not sufficient to establish free and voluntary consent. We will not infer both the request and the consent.”). 2 . The evidence supports the district court’s finding that isolated pieces of evidence not immediately visible in the warehouse area— most importantly, a “booster list’’ of stolen items on a desk in the officer area of the building — were in plain view while the agents were lawfully attempting to get Kheir’s written consent to search the building. 3 . Kheir declined to memorialize this consent in writing without first speaking to a lawyer. But declining to sign a consent form does not automatically withdraw previously given oral consent. See United States v. Stevens, 487 F.3d 232, 240-41 (5th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Gomez-Diaz, 712 F.2d 949,
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 that defendants consent was involuntary where defendant consented to search following a warrantless entry and officers explained that absent consent the officers would obtain a warrant holding district courts finding of consent was not clearly erroneous when the defendant consented after officers told him they could get a drug dog even though the defendant knew the dog would alert 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 holding consent invalid where defendant threatened by officer that everyone in the house would go to jail if he did not sign consent form