1 The Honorable Henry E. Autrey, United St ates District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 07-3791

___________ United States of America, *
* Plaintiff – Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Jay Scott Patterson, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Defendant – Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 23, 2008 Filed: October 1, 2008

___________ Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.

Jay Scott Patterson was convicted by a ju ry of possession of an unregistered firearm silencer, 21 U.S.C. § 5861(d), posse ssion of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture, id. § 841(c), and possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute, id. § 841(a)(1). He appeals, claiming that he did not voluntarily consent to the search of his home, that the district court 1 should have granted his motion for-2- a continuance, and that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. We affirm.

Patterson contends that he did not voluntarily consent to the search and that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We review the denial of a motion to suppress de novo, but review the district c ourt's underlying factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Martinez , 358 F.3d 1005, 1008 (8th Cir. 2004). To determine whether consent is voluntary we c onsider “the totality of the circumstances, including characteristics of the accused and de tails of the interrogation.” United States v. Luna , 368 F.3d 876, 878 (8th Cir. 2004). Law enforcement officers sought permission to search Patters on’s home and interp reted from his gesture that he had granted consent. In the home the o fficers saw evidence of methamphetamine production in plain view. Patte rson was arrested and a sear ch warrant obtained, after which the officers discovered more evidence of methamphetamine production, several firearms, and a silencer. Patterson argue s that his consent to enter was coerced because a number of officers had come to his door, others had set up a perimeter around his house, and he was unaware of hi s rights. These arguments differ from those made to the district court, however, where Patterson argued that he withdrew his consent after the officers were already in his house. We conclude the district court did not clearly err in finding that Patterson voluntarily consented to the entry of the officers.

Patterson argues that the district c ourt erred in denying his motion for a continuance after his final witness, Donna Johnson, becam e unavailable due to illness. We will not overturn a district court's denialof a continuance ab sent a clear abuse of discretion. SeeUnited States v. Young , 943 F.2d 24, 25 (8th Cir. 1991). Here, the district court had already granted one con tinuance for Johnson to testify, and it found that her testimony would be cumulative and would not rehabilitate another defense witness. We conclude that the district court did not abus e its discretion in denying the continuance.-3- Finally, Patterson contends that the court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal. A judgment of acquittal is required if the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 29(a). We re view challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo, viewi ng the evidence in the light most favorable to the government and accepting all reasonabl e inferences in favor of the verdict. United States v. Garcia , 521 F.3d 898, 901 (8th Cir. 2008). Patterson argues that because the evidence showed that his ex girlfriend Laura Baston had access to the residence, and could have introduced ite ms into the home, the government had not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Patterson knowingly possessed the silencer and drug related evidence. Weconclude that the government introduced sufficient evidence to support a jury determination th at Patterson knew about the materials in his house, and to sustain the guilty verdict on all three counts.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

_____________________________