similarly situated eodefendants would not have changed the district court’s ruling, and (3) if one defendant succeeded in convincing the district court to grant his motion, his codefendants would then simply have filed the same motion. Westbrook, Bledsoe, and Peoples also note that the Speedy Trial Act provides that, if one codefendant seeks an adjournment excludable under the act, the request is imputed to all codefendants. Similarly, they argue, if one defendant moves for dismissal of the indictment for violation of the act, all the defendants should implicitly be regarded as joining in the motion. We have sometimes allowed a defendant to preserve a district court error as long as one of his codefendants objected below. See United States v. White, 589 F.2d 1283, 1290 (5th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); Love, 472 F.2d at 496 (holding that the
holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court holding that the objection both instructions fit this case and should be given is inadequate to preserve issue holding that general objection did not preserve error on appeal holding that objection to instructions by codefendants counsel is sufficient to preserve any error holding timely and sufficiently specific objection is required to preserve error