___________

No. 95-3683

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. *

 *

Enrique Manjarrez-Padilla, also *

known as Paco, also known as *

Francisco Mendoza, *

 *

Appellant, *

___________ Appeals from the United States

 District Court for the

No. 95-3685 Western District of Missouri.

___________

United States of America, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee, *

 *

v. *

 *

Ramon Godoy Galindo, *

 *

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: May 16, 1996 

 Filed: June 11, 1996

___________

Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Enrique Manjarrez-Padilla, Ramon Godoy Galindo, and others

transported various controlled substances from California to Kansas City,

Missouri, and distributed them between March 1993 and
-2-

December 1994. Based on pleas of guilty, both were convicted on drug

charges and Manjarrez-Padilla was convicted on a firearms charge. In this

consolidated appeal, each defendant appeals his sentence. For the reasons

set forth below, we affirm as to Galindo's appeal, and remand ManjarrezPadilla's firearm conviction for further consideration.

MANJARREZ-PADILLA

Manjarrez-Padilla pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute

marijuana, cocaine, and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§

841(a)(1) and 846, "using" a firearm during and in relation to a drug

trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and criminal

forfeiture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853. In the plea agreement the

government agreed to file substantial-assistance departure motions under

U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, p.s., and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e), if deemed appropriate.

The plea agreement also provided that the district court could not reduce

Manjarrez-Padilla's sentence below seven years (84 months). At the May

1995 plea hearing, the district court accepted Manjarrez-Padilla's plea of

guilty to the section 924(c) charge pursuant to the government's assertion

it could prove the firearm was found near a scale and drug proceeds.

At Manjarrez-Padilla's October sentencing hearing, the court granted

the government's previously-filed substantial-assistance motion under

section 5K1.1 for the drug offense, and its motions under sections 5K1.1

and 3553(e) for the firearm offense. As to the drug offense, the court

departed downward to the statutory mandatory minimum and sentenced

Manjarrez-Padilla to 120 months imprisonment. As to the firearm offense,

the court sentenced Manjarrez-Padilla to 60 months imprisonment; the court

departed downward by ordering the firearm sentence to be served

concurrently--rather than consecutively--to the drug sentence. The court

sentenced Manjarrez-Padilla to a total of five years
-3-

supervised release.

On appeal, appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). The Anders brief suggests that pursuant

to the plea agreement, Manjarrez-Padilla could not be sentenced to more

than 84 months imprisonment. Although granted leave, Manjarrez-Padilla has

not filed a supplemental brief.

We conclude the issue raised in the Anders brief is meritless,

because the plea agreement did not provide for a specific sentence, but

rather set forth the parties' stipulation that under no circumstances would

Manjarrez-Padilla receive a sentence less than 84 months. In accordance

with Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we have reviewed the record

to look for any nonfrivolous issues. In light of the Supreme Court's

December 1995 decision in United States v. Bailey, 116 S. Ct. 501 (1995),

we conclude such an issue is presented.

In Bailey, the Supreme Court held that a section 924(c) conviction

for "use" of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense

requires proof of "active employment of the firearm." Id. at 506. Because

the district court has not had an opportunity to consider the effect of

Bailey on Manjarrez-Padilla's section 924(c) conviction, we remand so the

district court may do so. Finally, we have found no other nonfrivolous

issues.

GALINDO

Galindo pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute marijuana,

cocaine, and methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and

846, and criminal forfeiture, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 853. At

sentencing, Galindo objected to the probation officer's failure to

recommend an additional one-level reduction for acceptance of

responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b)(2), and a mitigating-role

reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. The court
-4-

overruled Galindo's objections, adopted the PSR, and sentenced Galindo to

151 months imprisonment and five years supervised release, and ordered him

to pay a $2,000 fine. On appeal, Galindo argues that the district court

erred by denying him an additional point for acceptance of responsibility,

and by denying him a mitigating-role reduction based solely on a dismissed

firearm count.

 The Guidelines permit a district court to reduce a defendant's offense

level by two levels "[i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of

responsibility for his offense." U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a). Section 3E1.1(b)(2)

permits a further one- level reduction when a defendant qualifies for the

two-level reduction under section 3E1.1(a), the defendant's offense level

is 16 or greater, and "the defendant has assisted authorities in the

investigation or prosecution of his own misconduct by . . . timely

notifying authorities of his intention to enter a plea of guilty, thereby

permitting the government to avoid preparing for trial and permitting the

court to allocate its resources efficiently." Here, Galindo did not plead

guilty until the eve of trial, thus forcing the government to expend

significant time and expense in preparing for trial. We disagree with

Galindo that his plea was timely because it was entered as soon as the

district court ruled on his motion to dismiss one count of the indictment.

See United States v. Narramore, 36 F.3d 845, 846 (9th Cir. 1994) (no

entitlement to § 3E1.1(b)(2) reduction where defendant entered guilty plea

after district court ruled on motion to dismiss indictment "on the eve of

trial," and government had prepared for trial); United States v. McQuay,

7 F.3d 800, 803 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we find no error in the

denial of the additional point. See United States v. Thompson, 60 F.3d

514, 517 (8th Cir. 1995) (no clear error in denial of § 3E1.1(b)(2)

reduction where defendant did not timely notify government of intent to

plead guilty and government "had essentially already completed its

preparations for trial").
-5-

Section 3B1.2 as a whole permits "adjustment for a defendant who

plays a part in committing the offense that makes him substantially less

culpable than the average participant." U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, comment.

(backg'd.). A sentencing court must consider the defendant's role in the

entire conspiracy. See United States v. Westerman, 973 F.2d 1422, 1427-28

(8th Cir. 1992). 

We reject Galindo's assertion that the district court could not

consider Galindo's relevant conduct. See United States v. Lucht, 18 F.3d

541, 556 (8th Cir.) (defendant's role in offense is based on all relevant

conduct, not solely on act of conviction), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 363

(1994). Moreover, the record shows that Galindo was an active participant

in the conspiracy which involved a significant quantity of drugs.

Accordingly, we find no error in the denial of the mitigating-role

reduction. See United States v. Abanatha, 999 F.2d 1246, 1250 (8th Cir.

1993) (sentencing court properly denied § 3B1.2(b) reduction where

defendant was active participant in drug conspiracy), cert denied, 114 S.

Ct. 1549 (1994); United States v. Garvey, 905 F.2d 1144, 1146 (8th Cir.

1990) (per curiam) (district court can deny mitigating-role reduction based

solely on presence of significant amount of drugs).

Thus, we affirm Galindo's sentence. See United States v. Lublin, 981

F.2d 367, 370 (8th Cir. 1992) (affirming denial of Chapter 3 reduction on

other ground "clearly supported" by the record); cf. Williams v. United

States, 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992) (remand required when district court

misapplies Guidelines, unless reviewing court concludes on basis of whole

record that error was harmless).
-6-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.