               IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                       _____________________

                            No. 96-11008
                          Summary Calendar
                       _____________________


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff-Appellee,

                              versus

MICHAEL A. HEKIMAIN,

                                               Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Northern District of Texas
                      USDC No. 3:96-CR-80-R-1
_________________________________________________________________
                           June 12, 1997

Before KING, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Michael A. Hekimain appeals his conviction for failure to

appear for service of his sentence.    Hekimain contends that the

district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to

recuse.   Hekimain also contends that the district court erred in

denying him a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility

and in enhancing his offense level for obstruction of justice.



     *
      Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
     We have reviewed the record and the briefs of the parties and

hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying the motion to recuse. United States v. Landerman, ___ F.3d

___ (5th Cir. Mar. 31, 1997, Nos. 94-10028, 94-10403), 1997 WL

144112.   The district court’s statements and actions occurred in

the course of judicial proceedings, did not rely upon knowledge

acquired outside such proceedings, and did not display deep-seated

antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible.   Landerman,

1997 WL 144112; Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994).   The

district court also did not err in denying Hekimain a two-level

reduction for acceptance of responsibility.      United States v.

Vital, 68 F.3d 114 (5th Cir. 1995); United States v. Marmolejo, 106

F.3d 1213 (5th Cir. 1997).    Finally, the district court did not

clearly err in enhancing Hekimain’s offense level for obstruction

of justice.   United States v. Storm, 36 F.3d 1289 (5th Cir. 1994),

cert. denied, 115 S.Ct. 1798 (1995); United States v. Dunnigan, 507

U.S. 87 (1993).

                                                  A F F I R M E D.




                                -2-
