The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States District Court 1 for the Western District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-4172

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas Ivan L. Due, * * {UNPUBLISHED} Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 3, 1998 Filed: March 12, 1998

___________ Before McMILLIAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.

Ivan L. Due appeals from the final judgment entere d in the District Court for the Western District o f 1 Arkansas after he pleaded guilty to failing t o report the release of hazardous substances into the environment, in viola tion of 42 U.S.C. § 9603(b). The district cour t-2-

se ntenced Due to 18 months imprisonment and one yea r supervised release, and imposed a $3,000 fine. Counse l has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v.-3-

Calif ornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). For reversal, Du e raises two challenges to his sentence. For the reason s discussed below, we affirm the judgment of the distric t court.

Due f irst argues that the district court erred i n enhancing his offense level for obstructing j ustice. The enhancement applies when a defendant directly o r indirectly threatens, intimidates, or otherwis e unla wfullyinfluences a witness, or attempts to do so

. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, comment. (n.3(a)) (1997). A defe ndant is accountable not only for his or her ow n condu ct, but also for conduct that he or she aided o r abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, procured, o r willfully caused. See id. , comment. (n.8) (1997).

The r ecord shows that Due was present at an offic e meeting during which Walter Schluterman, vice presiden t of Custom Quality Gel-Coat, Inc. (CQ), told CQ employees about the need for Schluterman and Due to distanc e themselves from the hazardous waste disposal at CQ tha t
was currently being investigated by authorities ; Sc hluterman also discussed the possibility that C Q employees could lose their jobs depending on the outcome of the investigation. The record further shows that , duri ng two series of interviews, CQ employees provide d inve stigators with inconsistent accounts of what th e employees knew about the disposal. Given Due & s presenc e at t he meeting with CQ employees--combined with hi s status as a part owner, officer, and supervisor, and his failure to contradict Schluterman--we cannot say that the district court erred in concluding Due unlawfull y attempted to influence witnesses, at least indirectly

. See U nited States v. Sykes , 4 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir

. 1993) (per curiam) (standard of review).-4-

Second, Due argues that the district court erred i n enhancing his offense level for his aggravating role i n the offense. Due was not only part owner and vic e pre sident of CQ, but he was also a supervisor of the C Q employees who participated in burying the waste, and C Q empl oyees indicated that Due and Schluterman had bot h plan ned and participated in the illegal burial. Unde r these circumstances, the district court did not-5-

clearly err in assessing the enhancement. See Unite d States v. Flores , 73 F.3d 826, 835 (8th Cir.) (standar d of review), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 2568 (1996) ; U.S.S .G. § 3B1.1(c) (1997) (adjustment is appropriat e where defendant organized, supervised, led, or manage d crimi nal activity that involved fewer than fiv e participants and was not otherwise extensive).

We have reviewed the record in accordance with Penso n
v. Oh io , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), for any nonfrivolou s issues for appeal, and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
A true copy.

Attest:

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