1

The HONORABLE RICHARD H. KYLE, United States District Judge

for the District of Minnesota.

___________

No. 95-3269

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Roger Dale Tokvam, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: February 15, 1996

 Filed: February 22, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Roger Dale Tokvam appeals the sentence imposed by the

district court1

 after he pleaded guilty to distributing

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), using and

carrying a firearm during a drug trafficking crime, in violation of

18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and willfully failing to appear, in violation

of 18 U.S.C. § 3146(a)(1). For reversal, Tokvam argues the

district court erred in failing to make a specific factual finding

as to whether this was an "extraordinary case" warranting both a

reduction for acceptance of responsibility and an enhancement for

obstruction of justice. During the pendency of this appeal, Tokvam

filed a motion for remand based on Bailey v. United States, 116

S. Ct. 501 (1995), arguing that there was no proof that he "used"
-2-

the firearm during a drug trafficking crime. 

Following his indictment for the instant drug and firearm

offenses and his release on bond, Tokvam absconded to California

and failed to appear at his change-of-plea hearing. While in

California, Tokvam was arrested, convicted, and sentenced for,

among other things, possession of methamphetamine. Tokvam remained

in state custody until he was located by the United States

Marshal's Service. Tokvam then pleaded guilty to the instant

offenses.

Tokvam's presentence report (PSR) recommended an obstructionof-justice enhancement. Although the PSR reported Tokvam's claim

that he had absconded after his drug source threatened retaliation

if he cooperated with authorities, the probation officer did not

recommend an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, partly because

of Tokvam's continued criminal conduct in California. In his

sentencing position paper, Tokvam objected and argued that his was

an "extraordinary case." At sentencing, Tokvam did not present any

evidence on his objection, but rather relied solely on his

sentencing position paper. The court overruled Tokvam's objection

and sentenced him to a total of 181 months imprisonment (a

121-month Guidelines sentence, and a consecutive 60-month sentence

for violating section 924(c)(1)), and a total of four years

supervised release.

"Sentencing Guideline § 3E1.1 allows the district court to

reduce the offense level of a defendant who `clearly demonstrates

acceptance of responsibility for his offense.'" United States v.

Evans, 51 F.3d 764, 766 (8th Cir. 1995). The burden for

establishing acceptance of responsibility is on the defendant.

United States v. Morales, 923 F.2d 621, 628 (8th Cir. 1991). A

district court's decision to grant or deny an acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction is given great deference and will not be

disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. Evans, 51 F.3d at 766.
-3-

When an obstruction-of-justice enhancement is assessed, an

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction is ordinarily not granted

unless it is an extraordinary case. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, comment.

(n.4).

In view of Tokvam's arrest and conviction for possession of

methamphetamine after his release on bond, we conclude the district

court did not clearly err by denying him the acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. See United States v. Nguyen, 52 F.3d

192, 194 (8th Cir. 1995). Nor did the district court err by

implicitly rejecting Tokvam's claim that this was an "extraordinary

case." See United States v. Dortch, 923 F.2d 629, 633 (8th Cir.

1991) (remand for specific findings unnecessary where it is clear

district court implicitly rejected defendant's acceptance-ofresponsibility argument).

We deny Tokvam's motion for remand because he pleaded guilty

to using and carrying the firearm, and at his plea hearing he

admitted to carrying the firearm during the drug transaction. See

Bailey, 116 S. Ct. 507-09 (defining "use" to preserve "carry" as

alternative basis for § 924(c)(1) charge).

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

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