Ublester Pineda was convicted in a bench trial of possession with intent to distribute over 50 grams of methamphetamine and was sentenced to 90 months of imprisonment and five years of supervised release. He argues that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence of the methamphetamine that was obtained in a search of the vehicle he was driving. He contends that the search exceeded the scope of his consent when, after a manual search of the vehicle, he was detained pending the arrival of a canine unit to do a sniff test, during which the methamphetamine was discovered.

Pineda conceded in his motion to suppress that he consented to a search of his vehicle, and he did not contend then, nor does he on appeal, that he withdrew that consent or objected in any way either before or during the canine search. Furthermore, nothing in the record indicates that the officer conducting the search said or did anything that would have led Pineda to believe that he could not have withdrawn his consent. Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that the search was within the scope of the consent. United States v. McSween, 53 F.3d 684, 688 (5th Cir. 1995).

AFFIRMED.