
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Enio GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Adan Virelas Segura, Defendant-Appellant.
    Nos. 03-41722, 03-41749.
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided Nov. 4, 2004.
    John B. Stevens, Jr, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Jani J. Maselli, Houston, TX, Edgar Demian Lieck, Anahuac, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    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, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (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. Zueco, 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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     