* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________

Nos. 95-30708, 95-30709, 95-30711

Summary Calendar

___________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

THOMAS MATHIEU, JEROME

MATHIEU, and GRANT MATHIEU,

Defendants-Appellants.

________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Louisiana

(94-CR-96-R)

________________________________________________

May 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Thomas Mathieu (Thomas) appeals his guilty-plea conviction for

use of a communication facility in causing or facilitating the

commission of a felony. Jerome Mathieu (Jerome) and Grant Mathieu

(Gran t) appeal their guilty-plea convictions for conspiracy to

distribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base.

Thomas and Grant have not shown that the district court erred

in finding that each of them did not provide full and tru thful2

cooperation as called for by their respective plea agreements, and

that the Government did not breach the agreements, which in any

event provided that the government had sole discretion whether to

file a motion for downward depart ure. C f. United States v.

Garcia-Bonilla , 11 F.3d 45, 46-47 (5th Cir. 1993).

Thomas has not shown that the district court erred by

attributing the 1.5 kilograms of cocaine to him for sentencing

purposes. See U.S.S.G. §§ 1B1.3, comment. (n.1), 2D1.1(c)(1) &

comment. (n.12), and 2D1. 6; U nited States v. Evbuomwan, 992 F.2d

70, 72-74 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, had there been an

overestimation of as much as 1.25 kilograms as to quantity it would

not have affected Thomas’s guideline range, as that was capped by

the 4 year statutory maximum. Thomas has not shown that the

district court erred in denying an offense- level adjustment for

acceptance of res ponsibility. S ee United States v. Watson

, 988

F.2d 544, 551 (5th Cir. 1993), cert. denied

, 114 S.Ct. 698 (1994);

United States v. Paden

, 908 F.2d 1229, 1237 (5th Cir. 1990), cert.

denied

, 498 U.S. 1039 (1991). Nor would such an adjustment have

changed the guideline range, in view of the statutory maximum.

Thomas has not shown that the district court failed in any way to

comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11. Moreover, if there was any

failure to fully and perfectly comply, any such minor failure would

be clearly harmless here. S ee United States v. Johnson

, 1 F. 3 d

296, 298 (5th Cir. 1993)(en banc).

Jerome has not shown that the district court erred either in

finding he did not provide full and truthful cooperation as called3

for by his plea agreement (which in any event provided the

government had sole discr etion whether to move for downward

departure) or in not allowing him to withdraw his guilty plea. S ee

United States v. Bounds , 943 F.2d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1991).

Jerome and Grant have not shown that the district court erred

by refusing to continue the sentencing until the relevant

sentencing guidelines are revised. S ee Pub. L. No. 104-38, 109

Stat. 334, cited in United States v. Roberson

, No. 95-2711, 1996 WL

47448 at *1 (7th Cir. Feb. 2, 1996)(unpublished); United States v.

Watson

, 953 F.2d 895, 897-98 (5th Cir.), cert. denied

, 504 U.S. 928

(1992).

We AFFIRM as to each appellant.

AFFIRMED