1 The Honorable E. Richard Webber, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3885

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Everette Simmons, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 16, 2010 Filed: December 21, 2010

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MELLOY, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. A jury found Everette Simmons guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. The district court 1 sentenced him within the calculated a dvisory Guidelines range to 110 months in prison and 4 years of supervised release. His counsel has f iled a brief under Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he seek s to withdraw and challenges the government witnesses’ credibility in light of their cooperation agreements. In his pro se brief, Simmons challenges the district court’s drug-quantity determination and-2- imposition of enhancements under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1(b) (manager or supervisor of criminal activity) and U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 (obstruction of justice).
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Simmons’s conviction. See United States v. Birdine , 515 F.3d 842, 844 (8th Cir. 2008) (this court reviews sufficiency of evidence in light most favorable to government, resolving evidentiary conflicts in favor of govern ment, and accepting all reasonable inferences that support jury’s verdict); see also United States v. Hernandez , 569 F.3d 893, 896 (8th Cir. 2009) (government must prove th ere was agreement to distribute drugs, and defendant knew of conspiracy and in tentionally joined it), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 1308 (2010). Assessing how the cooperation agreements affected the witnesses’ credibility, as well as resolving any in consistencies in the testimony, were determinations within the exclus ive province of the jury. See United States v. Jones , 559 F.3d 831, 835 (8th Cir. 2009) (verdictmay be based solely on testimony of conspirators and cooperating witnesses; deciding credibility and resolving conflicting testimony are within jury’s province, and appellate court does not review questions involving witness credibility).
As to Simmons’s pro se arguments, we conclude thata preponderance of evidence supports the district court’s findi ng attributing at least 500 grams of cocaine to Simmons. See United States v. Plancarte-Vazquez , 450 F.3d 848, 852-53 (8th Cir. 2006) (standard of review; when calculating drug quantity in context of drugtrafficking conspiracy, sentencing court may consider all transactions known or reasonably foreseeable to defendant that we re made in furtherance of conspiracy; affirming district court’s drug-quantity determination based on testimony of coconspirator that defendant and other co -conspirator supplied her with pound quantities of drugs over course of conspiracy). We fu rther conclude that the district court did not clearly err in assessing the 2-level increase for obstructing justice upon finding, based on personal recollecti on and assessment of Simmons’s trial testimony, that Simmons testified falsely, seeUnited States v. Williams , 557 F.3d 556, 560-61 (8th-3- Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied , 130 S. Ct. 237 (2009); and did not clearly err in assessing the 3-level increase for being a manager or supervisor of a conspiracy, because there were more than 5 participan ts and Simmons directed the actions of at least 3 participants, see United States v. Mesner , 377 F.3d 849, 851-52 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review).
Finally, having reviewed the recordindependently under Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issu e for appeal. Accordingly, we grant counsel leave to withdraw, and we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________