The HONORABLE RUSSELL G. CLARK, United States District Judg e for the 1 Western District of Missouri. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 96-3811

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Missouri. Robert James Brown, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: June 20, 1997 Filed: June 25, 2997

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

___________ PER CURIAM. Robert James Brown ple aded guilty to manufacturing marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). The district court sentenced Brown to 70 months imprisonment 1 and fi ve years supervised release, and he appeals. Counsel filed a brief pursuant t o Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and was granted le ave to withdraw. Brown has filed a pro se supplemental brief with our permission. We affirm.-2-

Brown argues the district court erred in denying h im a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guide lines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995). The undisputed record evidence clearly demonstrates that Brown committed t he offense of trespass while on bond, that he consistently disp uted the number of marijuana plants involved, and that his statements to the presentence officer minimized significantly the extent of his invol vement and contradicted his stipulations in his plea agreement. See U.S. Sen tencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a), (h)) (factors t o consider) (1995); cf. United States v. Byrd , 76 F.3d 194, 197 (8th Cir. 1996) (§ 3E1.1 does not preclude consideration of unlawful conduct unrelated to offense of conviction in determining whether defendant qualifies for acceptance-of -responsibility adjustment; such conduct could shed light on sincerity of defendant’s claims of remorse); United States v. C ontreras , 927 F.2d 1058, 1059 (8th Cir.) (affirming denial of § 3E1. 1 reduction where defendant refused to admit extensive involvement in drug distribution scheme despite contrary evidence), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 929 (1991). Under thes e circumstances, we find no clear error in the districtcourt’s denial of the acceptance-ofresponsibility adjustment. See Byrd , 76 F.3d at 195 (standard of review). To the extent Brown challenges the district cour t’s finding regarding the number of plants i nvolved in the offense, we further conclude Brown waived his right to such a challe nge by reaching an agreement with the government that 594 plants wer e involved a nd withdrawing his objection at sentencing. See United States v. HipolitoSanc hez , 998 F.2d 594, 596 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (where defendant withdrew objec tion to drug amount in PSR at sentencing, he waived his right to challenge tha t amount on appeal); cf. United States v. Fritsch , 891 F.2d 667, 668 (8th Cir. 1989 ) (where defendant voluntarily exposed himself to specific sentence and did not object in district court, he waived his right to appeal punishment). Having reviewed

the record, we find no other nonfrivolous issues. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988). Accordingly, we affirm.-3-

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