                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
                        ____________________

                           No. 98-41590
                       ____________________

                     UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                              Plaintiff - Appellee,

                               versus

                   PATRICK BOUVIER WASHINGTON,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
                 for the Eastern District of Texas
                          (1:98-CR-11-ALL)
_________________________________________________________________

                           July 19, 1999

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Patrick Bouvier Washington appeals his sentence, following a

guilty-plea conviction for bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344(a).

     First, Washington contests his U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 obstruction of

justice enhancement, a factual finding we review only for clear

error.   E.g., United States v. Upton, 91 F.3d 677, 687 (5th Cir.

1996).   We find none, given Washington’s refusal to provide a

handwriting exemplar even in the face of a grand-jury subpoena and

court order.   Other circuits have found such refusal to constitute

§ 3C1.1 obstruction of justice. See United States v. Valdez, 16

F.3d 1324, 1335 (2nd Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 810 (1994);

     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
United States v. Ruth, 65 F.3d 599, 608 (7th Cir. 1995);                        United

States v. Reyes, 908 F.2d 281, 290 (8th Cir. 1990), cert. denied,

499 U.S. 908 (1991);       United States v. Taylor, 88 F.3d 938, 943-44

(11th Cir. 1996); cf. Upton, 91 F.3d at 688 (refusal under grand

jury    subpoena    to   produce   business       records   warrants        §    3C1.1

enhancement).

       Second,     Washington    challenges       the   denial   of    a    §    3E1.1

acceptance-of-responsibility reduction, a determination reviewed

“even    more    deferential[ly]     than     a    pure   ‘clearly      erroneous’

standard”, United States v. Gonzales, 19 F.3d 982, 983 (5th Cir.

1994), and on which the defendant has the burden of proof, United

States v. Tremelling, 43 F.3d 148, 152 (5th Cir. 1995).                    We find no

reversible      error,   given   Washington’s       obstruction       of    justice,

failure to plead guilty until a jury was impaneled, and denial of

relevant conduct described in his Presentence Report. See § 3E1.1,

application note 4 (obstruction of justice under § 3C1.1 normally

shows lack of acceptance of responsibility); id., application note

3 (guilty pleas prior to trial show acceptance of responsibility,

and failure to admit relevant conduct shows lack of                   acceptance).

                                                                       AFFIRMED




                                     - 2 -
