IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-20197
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
MICHAEL ANTHONY SOLIS,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(CR-H-96-152-4)
March 23, 1998
Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Michael Anthony Solis appeals his conviction and sentence for
conspiracy to possess cocaine with the intent to distribute and
aiding and abetting possession of cocaine with the intent to
distribute. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A); 18 U.S.C.
§ 2. Solis argues that the district court failed to comply with
the dictates of Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) and (f) in accepting his
guilty plea. He further contends that the district court
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
erroneously enhanced his sentence on the ground that he was a
supervisor or manager of the conspiracy. Finally, Solis maintains
that the district court should have reduced his sentence because he
played only a minor role in the offense.
The district court complied with the dictates of Fed. R. Crim.
P. 11(c)(1) and (f) in conducting the plea colloquy with any
deficiencies amounting only to harmless error. See United States
v. Johnson, 1 F.3d 296, 302 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc); United
States v. Adams, 961 F.2d 505, 511-12 (5th Cir. 1992). In
addition, the district court did not clearly err in imposing the
enhancement for manager or supervisor status. See United States v.
Okoli, 20 F.3d 615, 616 (5th Cir. 1994). The district court also
properly refused to reduce Solis’s sentence on the ground that he
was a minor participant in the offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2
commentary; see also United States v. Mueller, 902 F.2d 336, 345
(5th Cir. 1990).
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2