* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 99-50417

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JESUS AARON FLORES; EDGAR ENRIQUE

FLORES; ROBERTO AGUILAR-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendants-Appellants.

_____________________

No. 99-50508

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

GUADELUPE FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. 99-CR-3-1

USDC No. 99-CR-3-2

USDC No. 99-CR-3-3

USDC No. 99-CR-3-4

_________________________________________________________________ March 23, 2000

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *2

Jesus Aaron Flores (“Aaron”), Edgar Enrique Flores (“Edgar”),

Guadelupe Flores (“Guadelupe”), and Roberto Aguilar-Rodriguez

(“Aguil ar”) appeal from their convictions of importation of

marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana,

conspiracy to import marijuana, and consp iracy to possess with

intent to distribute marijuana. Aaron, Edgar, and Guadelupe

contend that law enforcement agents lacked reasonable suspicion to

stop their vehicles. Edgar contends that agents lacked reasonable

suspicion to detain him. Aaron and Aguilar contend that the

evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. Although

Aaron and Guadelupe attempt to adopt the claims raised by each

other and by the other appellants as provided by F ED

. R. A PP

. P.

28(i), this court does not allow an appellant to adopt factspecific chal lenges, such as sufficiency of the evidence, to

support a conviction or sentence. See United States v. Moser , 123

F.3d 813, 819 n.3 (5th Cir. 1997). We allow Aaron to adopt Edgar’s

argument regarding the stop of the vehicle in which both rode. We

do not allow Aaron to adopt any other arguments made in any other

appellant’s brief, and we do not allow Guadelupe to adopt any

arguments made in any other appellant’s brief.

There was no stop of the Chevrolet Lumina in which Aaron and

Edgar rode. The vehicle was stopped and its occupants were

standing outside when Agent Scott Roddy approached the vehicle.

Agent Roddy did not say or do anything before requesting a canine

that would lead a reasonable person to believe that he was not free3

to leave. F lorida v. Bostick

, 50 1 U.S. 429, 434 (1991). No

evidence from the vehicle itself, or arising from the ultimate

detention of the vehicle or its occupants, was introduced against

Aaron and Edgar; we need not consider any contentions regarding the

detention of that vehicle or its occupants following the

conversation with Roddy. U nited States v. Lewis

, 621 F.2d 1382,

1389 (5th Cir. 1980).

Guadelupe’s vehicle, a Chevrolet Cavalier, was stopped for

speeding; the stop was appropriate, even if the stop was

pretextual. W hren v. United States

, 517 U.S. 806, 813 (1996). The

continued detention of Guadelupe for some period was justified by

Guadelupe’s driving without a license. See Barrett v. State , 718

S.W. 2d 888, 890 (Tex. Ct. App. 1986). Guadelupe does not contend

that his dete ntion became unreasonable at some point, s ee United

States v. Dortch

, 199 F.3d 193, 198 (5th Cir. 199 9); we do not

address any such issue. The canine alert to Guadelupe’s vehicle

provided probable cause to search the trunk of the car, where

marijuana was found. Id

.

There was subs tantial evidence in the record from which the

district court could have found Aaron and Aguilar guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. United States v. Ybarra , 70 F.3d 362, 364 (5th

Cir. 1995). The sensor pattern and the law enforcement agents’

o bservations indicated that the Lumina, the Shadow, and the

Cavalier traveled from Mexico in a caravan, with the Lumina acting

as a lead car and the Cavalier ac ting as a load car, and the4

Cavalier was registered to Aaron. However, the defendants denied

traveling wit h other people in other cars. Aguilar appeared

excessively nervous to Graham after he was stopped, and the

occupants of the Lumina looked rapidly back and forth at each other

during their encounter with Roddy. Aaron and Aguilar stipulated to

the presence of around 90 kilograms of marijuana. The district

court could have inferred that Aaron and Aguilar exercised joint

and constructive possession of the marijuana in the Cavalier; that

they intended to distribute the marijuana; that the marijuana was

imported from Mexico; and that Aaron and Aguilar knowingly

participated in conspiracies to import marijuana and to po ssess

with intent to distribute marijuana. U nited States v. Cardenas

, 9

F.3d 1139, 1158 (5th Cir. 1993) (po ssession with intent to

distribute); United States v. Lopez

, 979 F.2d 1024, 1031 (5th Cir.

1992)(inferring intent to distribute from drug am ount); U nited

States v. Ojebode

, 957 F.2d 1218, 1223 (5th Cir. 1992)(importation

of drugs); Un ited States v. Ayala , 887 F.2d 62, 67 (5th Cir.

1989)(drug conspiracy).

A F F I R M E D.