PER CURIAM.
Karl Redman pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute hashish oil. His plea was conditioned upon his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to suppress. For the reasons that follow, we find Redman’s claims on appeal fail, and thus we affirm his conviction.
First, we do not find that the district court’s factual determinations at the suppression hearing were clearly erroneous or that its legal decision to deny the motion was in error. United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir.1998). Second, we find that the district court did specifically find that Redman consented to a search of his passenger compartment on the train and, therefore, whether officers had probable cause to search or not is irrelevant. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 219, 93 S.Ct. 2041, 36 L.Ed.2d 854 (1973). Accordingly, we 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.