OPINION

Travell Bestes Moore pled guilty to one count of possession with intent to distribute cocaine base and one count of posses *941 sion of a firearm by a convicted felon. Moore challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress, contending that he was subject to a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and asserting that his statements and subsequent consent to search his home were both involuntary.

We review legal conclusions in a district court’s suppression determination de novo and review the underlying facts under the clearly erroneous standard, giving due weight to inferences drawn from those facts by resident law enforcement officers. United States v. Sprinkle, 106 F.3d 613, 616-17 (4th Cir. 1997). Upon our review, we find that Moore was properly questioned by officers pursuant to a valid investigative stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), for which Miranda warnings are not required. See Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 439-40, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). We further conclude, based on the totality of the circumstances, that Moore’s statements to officers and his consent to search his home for the firearm were both voluntarily given. See United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 877 (4th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, we find the district court properly denied Moore’s motion to suppress and affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.