22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T484,MEMORANDUM Matthew Craig Rubin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conducting transactions in criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 , and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. Rubin contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 despite his sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under section 3C1.1. We review the district court’s determination of whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for clear error. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir.2010). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Rubin’s obstruction of justice, including his flight to Mexico while sentencing was pending in this case, was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. See id. at 1066-67 . AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4b1,

MEMORANDUM

Matthew Craig Rubin appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conducting transactions in criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 , and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512 (b)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Rubin contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 despite his sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under section 3C1.1. We review the district court’s determination of whether a defendant has accepted responsibility for clear error. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th Cir.2010). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Rubin’s obstruction of justice, including his flight to Mexico while sentencing was pending in this case, was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. See id. at 1066-67 .

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.