(caption unavailable)

* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases
on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless
expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession."
Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 94-11156
Conference Calendar
__________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
TIMOTHY ALLEN McBROWN,
Defendant-Appellant.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:89-CR-159-A
- - - - - - - - - -
June 27, 1995
Before JONES, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The district court's acceptance-of-responsibility
determination is a factual finding reviewed for clear error.
United States v. Watkins, 911 F.2d 983, 984 (5th Cir. 1990). The
district court is entitled to great deference in determining
whether a defendant deserves the reduction for acceptance of
responsibility contemplated by the sentencing guidelines.
U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment. (n.5); see Watkins, 911 F.2d at 985.
A guilty plea does not, of itself, warrant a reduction for

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 94-11156
-2-
acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Paden, 908 F.2d
1229, 1237 (5th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1039 (1991).
The defendant bears the burden of proving that he is entitled to
the downward adjustment. United States v. Kinder, 946 F.2d 362,
367 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 907 (1992).
McBrown received a two-point upward adjustment in his
offense level for obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 for
attempting to bribe deputy U.S. Marshals to allow him to escape.
A defendant who receives the enhancement for obstruction of
justice qualifies for a reduction based on acceptance of
responsibility only in extraordinary circumstances. § 3E1.1,
comment. (n.4). The guideline addressing acceptance of
responsibility specifically states that "[c]onduct resulting in
an enhancement under § 3C1.1 . . . ordinarily indicates that the
defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal
conduct." Id. The interaction of these two guidelines
provisions in such a manner is specifically contemplated by the
guidelines. See id.
Given the district court's finding that McBrown had
obstructed justice, as well as the deferential standard of review
applied to acceptance-of-responsibility findings, the district
court did not clearly err in determining that McBrown was not
entitled to a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of
responsibility. See United States v. Ayala, 47 F.3d 688, 691
(5th Cir. 1995). The district court's decision is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --