### The Honorab le Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge 1 

### for the Western District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2831

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * v. * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the James Kenneth Thomas, also known * Western District of Missouri. as Jim Autry, * * [PUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: December 12, 1995 Filed: December 27, 1995

___________ Before WOLLMAN, MAGILL, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
James Kenneth Thomas appeals the sentence imposed by the distric t court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute marijuana, in

1 violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. We affirm. After pleading guilty and being released on bond, Thomas teste d positi ve for various controlled substances. Thomas later absconded fo r approximately three m onths. After he was re-arrested, Thomas admitted he had used marijuana while out on bond. At sentencing, the district court overruled Thomas's objections to an obstruction- of-justice enhancement and denied him an acceptance-of-responsibility reduc tion. The court sentenced

### -2-

Thomas to the 60-month statutory maximum term of imprisonment, which was below Thomas's Guidelines sentencing range of 63 to 78 months imprisonment . Thomas first argues the district court erred by assessing a n obstruction-of-justice enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. We review de novo wh ether section 3C1.1 applies to Thomas's specific conduct. Se e Uni ted States v. Sykes , 4 F.3d 697, 699 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) . Because Thomas abscon ded from supervision, we conclude the district court pro perly assessed the obstruction-of-justice enhancement. See Unite d States v. Shinder , 8 F.3d 633, 635 (8th Cir. 1993) (holding § 3C1. 1 enhancement proper where defendant fled to Calif ornia after conviction and prior to sentencing); United States v. Lyon , 959 F.2d 701, 707 (8th Cir. 1992 ) (holding § 3C1.1 enhancement proper where defendant fle d jurisd iction, became fugitive, and used alias); cf. U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 , comment. (n.3(e)) (19 92) (example of conduct to which § 3C1.1 enhancement applies is when defendant escapes from custody before sentencing). Next, Thomas argues the district court erred by denying him a n acc eptance-of-responsibilityreduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Give n Thomas's continued drug use, we conclude the district court did not clearl y err by denying him the reduction. See United States v. Evans , 51 F.3d 764 , 766 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review): United States v. Poplawski , 46 F.3d 42, 42-43 (8th Cir.) (no error in denying r eduction for acceptance of responsibility when defendant, while free on bond, continued use of drug related to instant conspiracy offense), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 226 1 (1995); United States v. Wivell , 893 F.2d 156, 1 59 (8th Cir. 1990) (same). Finally, we reject Thomas's argument that the district court erre d by not granting him a downward departure under U.S.S.G. §§ 5K1.1, p.s. or 5K2.0 , p.s. Absent a government motion, the district court lacked th e authority to grant Thomas a section 5K1.1

### -3-

departure . See Wade v. United States , 112 S. Ct. 1840, 1843-44 (1992) . The district court also lacked the authority to depart under section 5K2.0 on the basis of substantial assistance. See United States v. Baker , 4 F.3 d 622, 624 (8th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.