### The Honorab le 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 Rick Lyn Shaddon, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant.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 th e District Court following his guilty plea to conspiracy to distribut e 1 methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1), 846 (1994), use of a firearmduring a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C
. § 924(c) (1994), and concomitant agreement to cr iminal forfeiture pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853 (1994). We affirm.

We conclude Shaddon's challenge regarding the amount o f methamphetamine he distributed is without merit, as he stipulated in his plea agreement that h e 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 wh o voluntarilyand explicitly acknowledges that a specific Sentencin g Guideline provision applies may not challenge

### -2-

its application on appeal). We also conclude Shaddon's argument that the Distr ict Court erred in denying his motion to suppress is not properl y before us because by entering an unconditional guilty plea he waived any claimthat the search and seizure violated the Fourth Amendment. Se e United States v. Jennings , 12 F.3d 836, 839 (8th Cir. 1994).
Shadd onalso argues the District Court erred in assessing a four

level enhancement under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.1(a) (1995 ) (appli cable when defendant was leader or organizer of criminal activit y that involved five or more participants). In support of this argument, he cites United States v. Miller , 91 F.3d 1160, 116 4 (8th Cir. 1996) (holding district court should not have applied four-level enhancement because ther e was no evidence that defendant controlled his buyers in their resale o f meth amphetamine). 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 th e 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 (8t h Cir. 1996). At sentencing, Shaddon essentially conceded that he exercised control o ver his codefendant wife, and he does not contest that five o r 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. Smit h , 62 F.3d 1073, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 826 (1996).
The judgme nt of the District Court is affirmed. We also den y Shaddon's motion to provide grand jury documents.

### -3- A true copy.

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