The HONORABLE RUSSELL G. CLARK, United States District Judge 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* [UNPUBLISHED]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 pleaded 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 five years supervised release, and he appeals. Counsel filed a brief pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and was granted leave to withdraw. Brown

has filed a pro se supplemental brief with our permission. We affirm.
-2-

Brown argues the district court erred in denying him a downward adjustment for

acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (1995).

The undisputed record evidence clearly demonstrates that Brown committed the offense

of trespass while on bond, that he consistently disputed the number of marijuana plants

involved, and that his statements to the presentence officer minimized significantly the

extent of his involvement and contradicted his stipulations in his plea agreement. See

U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1, comment. (n.1(a), (h)) (factors to

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. Contreras, 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 these

circumstances, we find no clear error in the district court’s denial of the acceptance-ofresponsibility adjustment. See Byrd, 76 F.3d at 195 (standard of review).

To the extent Brown challenges the district court’s finding regarding the number

of plants involved in the offense, we further conclude Brown waived his right to such

a challenge by reaching an agreement with the government that 594 plants were

involved and withdrawing his objection at sentencing. See United States v. HipolitoSanchez, 998 F.2d 594, 596 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (where defendant withdrew

objection to drug amount in PSR at sentencing, he waived his right to challenge that

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.