UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________________
No. 95-50789
Summary Calendar
_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
ROY JUAREZ GODINEZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(SA-94-CR-295-(2))
_________________________________________________________________
August 29, 1996
Before JOLLY, JONES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Appellant Godinez was sentenced to two 135-month
concurrent terms of imprisonment after a jury convicted him of
conspiracy to distribute and distribution of cocaine. On appeal,
his court-appointed counsel argues that Godinez’s offense level
should be reduced by two because the evidence was insufficient to
establish that Godinez was a manager in the offense. Attorney
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Local Rule 47.5.4.
Padilla also asserts that Godinez urged him to argue the
sufficiency of evidence to convict, but pursuant to Anders v.
California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967), Padilla concludes that issue
is meritless. Finding no reversible error, we affirm.
The status of manager under the Guidelines is reviewed in
this court for clear error. Based on the testimony of co-
defendants and the entirety of the transactions in which Godinez
was implicated, there is no error in the court’s finding that
Godinez was a manager. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(c).
Moreover, the evidence was sufficient to convict Godinez.
Even though much of the incriminating testimony was given by co-
defendants who had pleaded guilty at the time of Godinez’s trial,
the jury was entitled to credit their testimony in whole or in
part. Confirmation of Godinez’s participation came from the
testimony of the undercover officer.
The court notes that court-appointed defense counsel
seems to have misunderstood the requirements of Anders in briefing
this appeal. Anders holds that after conscientiously reviewing the
record and identifying to the court any potential legal issues on
appeal, counsel may move to withdraw if he determines that an
appeal would be “wholly frivolous.” Anders, 368 U.S. at 744. If
counsel believes even one issue is meritorious, as he did here,
briefing pursuant to Anders is not allowed. Notwithstanding
counsel’s error in this case, the court was alerted to and did
2
consider the sufficiency of the evidence as suggested by appellant
Godinez to his counsel. Counsel’s misinterpretation of Anders in
this case was harmless error at best.
AFFIRMED.
3