The Honorable Russell G. Clark, United States District Judge 1

for the Western District of Missouri.

___________

No. 96-1523

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Rick Lyn Shaddon, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: November 21, 1996

 Filed: January 3, 1997

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Rick Lyn Shaddon appeals the 228-month sentence imposed by the

District Court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute

1

methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846 (1994), use of

a firearm during a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 924(c) (1994), and concomitant agreement to criminal forfeiture pursuant

to 21 U.S.C. § 853 (1994). We affirm.

We conclude Shaddon's challenge regarding the amount of

methamphetamine he distributed is without merit, as he stipulated in his

plea agreement that he had distributed between three and ten kilograms of

methamphetamine and that the proper base offense level was 34. See United

States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant who

voluntarily and explicitly acknowledges that a specific Sentencing

Guideline provision applies may not challenge
-2-

its application on appeal). We also conclude Shaddon's argument that the

District Court erred in denying his motion to suppress is not properly

before us because by entering an unconditional guilty plea he waived any

claim that the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. See

United States v. Jennings, 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 1994).

Shaddon also argues the District Court erred in assessing a fourlevel enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (1995)

(applicable when defendant was leader or organizer of criminal activity

that involved five or more participants). In support of this argument, he

cites United States v. Miller, 91 F.3d 1160, 1164 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding

district court should not have applied four-level enhancement because there

was no evidence that defendant controlled his buyers in their resale of

methamphetamine). Shaddon's reliance on Miller is misplaced, however,

because a four-level role enhancement is proper when a defendant organized

or led even one of the participants in a criminal activity involving five

or more participants. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1,

comment. (n.2) (1995); United States v. McMullen, 86 F.3d 135, 138 (8th

Cir. 1996). At sentencing, Shaddon essentially conceded that he exercised

control over his codefendant wife, and he does not contest that five or

more participants were involved in the criminal activity. Accordingly, we

conclude the District Court did not clearly err in assessing the section

3B1.1(a) enhancement. See United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 1073, 1079 (8th

Cir. 1995) (standard of review), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 826 (1996).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We also deny

Shaddon's motion to provide grand jury documents.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

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