Terence Anderson appeals his conditional guilty-plea conviction for unlawful possession of 16 firearms which were not registered to him in the national registry. Anderson argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized from a hidden compartment within his home.

Anderson first disputes the district court’s findings that the private search by Anderson’s wife of the hidden compartment was reasonably foreseeable. Anderson secondarily argues that his wife lacked actual or apparent authority to consent to the search of the hidden compartment.

*806 Based on Anderson’s wife’s status as co-owner and co-occupant of the marital home, it was reasonably foreseeable that she might enter and search the hidden compartment, despite Anderson’s orders to the contrary and regardless of the circumstances surrounding Anderson’s extra-marital activities. See United States v. Shelton, 337 F.3d 529, 536-38 (5th Cir. 2003), ce rt. denied, 540 U.S. 1229, 124 S.Ct. 1507, 158 L.Ed.2d 172 (2004). Similarly, given Anderson’s wife’s equal rights to the use and occupation of the marital home, she was authorized to give valid consent to the search of the premises. See id. Accordingly, the district court did not err in denying Anderson’s motion to suppress. See United States v. Alvarez, 6 F.3d 287, 289 (5th Cir. 1993).

AFFIRMED.