### The Honorable Jimm Larry Hendren, United States District 1 

### Judge for the Western District of Arkansas. ___________ No. 96-1374

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * * v. * * Karim Akbar, also known as Paul * Patrick Davis, also known as * Appeal from the United States Ocie Clyde Davis, also known as * District Court for the Ocie Clide Davis, also known as * Western District of Arkansas. Ocie C. Davis, also known as * Ocie Davis, also known as * [UNPUBLISHED] Karim D. Akbar, also known as * Clarence Earl Jackson, also * known as Robert Johnson, also * known as Karim El-Amin Akbar, * also known as Karim E. Akbar, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 21, 1996 Filed: November 25, 1996

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

___________ PER CURIAM.
Karim Akbar challenges the 157-month sentence imposed by the di strict court af ter he pleaded guilty to bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

1 §§ 2113(a) and (d), and using and carrying a firearm during and in relatio n to a cr ime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1). Counse l filed a brief pursuant

### -2-

to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and was granted leave t o withdraw. This court granted Akbar leave to file a pro se supplementa l brief, which he has done. We affirm.

In his An ders brief, counsel challenges the district court's denial of a r eduction for accepting responsibility, under the United State s Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Manual , § 3E1.1 (Nov. 1994), and notes that Akbar wishes to raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

We conclu de the district court did not clearly err in denying Akbar
a se ction 3E1.1 reduction, based on the court's finding that Akbar' s conduct in escaping from custody was inconsistent with his acceptance of responsibility and on its observations of Akbar on at least three separate occasions. See United States v. Cox , 921 F.2d 772, 773 (8th Cir. 1990);
see also United States v. Johnigan , 90 F.3d 1332, 1338 (8th Cir. 1996 ) (standard of review). Akbar's voluntary admission of his involvement in the offen se does not entitle him to the reduction, see United States v
. Diggs , 82 F.3d 195, 200 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 1996 WL 411298 (U.S. Oct
. 21, 1996) (No. 96-5244), nor does his mere expression of remorse, se e United States v. Roggy , 76 F.3d 189, 194 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 1700 (1996). Moreover, the district court a ssessed an obstruction-ofjustice enhancement -- which Akbar does not challenge -- and we conclude this is not an extraordinary case in which Akbar is also entitled to a n acceptance-of-responsibility reduction. See USS G § 3E1.1, comment. (n.4); United States v. Anderson , 68 F.3d 1050, 1056 (8th Cir. 1995).

Any i neffective-assistance claims Akbar wishes to raise should b e presented in a 28 U.S .C. § 2255 motion. See United States v. Thomas , 992 F.2d201, 204 (8th Cir. 1993). Having carefully reviewed the record and Akbar's pro se brief, we have found no nonfrivol ous issue for appeal. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988).

### -3- Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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