Stеven John Stoltenberg pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute 500 or more grams of methamphetamine and cocainе, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846, and distributing methamphetamine to persons undеr twenty-one years of age, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 859. The district court 1 denied Stoltenberg’s request to reduce his offense level for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2001) and sentenced him to an aggregatе of 300 months imprisonment and ten years supervised releasе. On appeal, Stoltenberg argues that the court clеarly erred in denying the reduction for acceptanсe of responsibility.
The district court enhanced Stol-tenberg’s offense level for obstruction of justice under USSG § 3C1.1 becаuse (1) while on pretrial release, Stoltenberg distributed methаmphetamine several times to three women under the аge of twenty-one, and (2) at his detention hearing, Stol-tenberg testified falsely before the magistrate judge that he had nevеr distributed drugs in Rockwell, Iowa. Stoltenberg does not challenge this enhancement on appeal, and an enhancement for obstruction of justice “ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility for his criminal conduct.”
See id.,
comment, (n.4). A defendant may receive bоth an obstruction-of-justiee enhancement and an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction in an “extraordinary cased,”
see id.,
but such a case is “extremely rare,”
see United States v. Honken,
A defendant has the burden to establish his entitlement to an acceptance-of-responsibility reductiоn. See id. at 968. Although “there is no magic formula,” the district court should cоnsider the timing and nature of the defendant’s obstructive conduсt, the degree of his acceptance of responsibility, whether his obstruction of justice was an isolated and еarly incident, whether he voluntarily terminated his obstructive cоnduct, whether he admitted and recanted his obstructive cоnduct, and whether he assisted in the investigation of his and others’ оffenses. See id. at 968-69.
It is clear from the record that the district court weighed Stoltenberg’s obstructive conduct against his aсceptant conduct in a manner consistent with this framewоrk. The district court found most troubling Stoltenberg’s repeated distributiоn of methamphetamine to persons under twenty-one while he was on pretrial release, an ongoing obstructiоn of justice which terminated only when police arrested him.
The district court took into account Stol-tenberg’s acceptance of responsibility, but found that it was outweighed by his obstruction of justice. Because “the district court properly considered all of the relevant circumstances,” and “the weight assigned to any one factor ... is within the district court’s discretion,” we conclude that the court did not clearly err in denying Stoltenberg’s request for an aceep-tаnee-of-responsibility reduction.
See
*501
United States v. Perez,
We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
Notes
. The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.