United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT November 4, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41722
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ENIO GONZALEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
---------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated with
No. 03-41749
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
ADAN VIRELAS SEGURA,
Defendant-Appellant.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CR-30-1
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendants-Appellants Enio Gonzalez and Adan Virelas Segura
appeal their convictions for possession with intent to distribute
cocaine. The argue that the district court erred in denying their
motions to suppress. We affirm.
Pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 19 (1968), the
arresting officers possessed the requisite “reasonable suspicion”
to stop the vehicle that Gonzalez was driving. The officers’
actions thereafter, including the questioning of Gonzalez, were
reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified the
stop in the first place. The district court did not clearly err
when it found that (1) Gonzalez had consented to the officer’s
request to search the vehicle; (2) as Gonzales was driving the
vehicle with Segura’s permission, Gonzalez had authority to
consent, see United States v. Randall, 887 F.2d 1262, 1265 (5th
Cir. 1989), United States v. Crain, 33 F.3d 480, 484 (5th Cir.
1994); and (3) Gonzalez’s consent to the search was voluntarily
given. See United States v. Zucco, 71 F.3d 188, 191 (5th Cir.
1995).
AFFIRMED.
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.