Yvonne Dilworth asks us to decide that the “underlying offense” upon which she was sentenced for harboring her fugitive son should have been his failure to appear for judicial proceedings and not his initial drug offense. Dilworth’s son, Frederick Niekles, had pled guilty to distributing crack cocaine within 1,000 feet of an elementary school, and Niekles failed to appear for subsequent court proceedings. After officers found Niekles in hiding at Dilworth’s home, she was convicted of harboring a fugitive, see 18 U.S.C. § 1071 (Supp. V 1993). The district court applied § 2X3.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines 1 and, using Niekles’ drug conviction as the underlying offense, 2 sentenced Dilworth to twenty-seven months in prison and three years of supervised release. 3 Dilworth argues that the district court should have used her son’s failure-to-appear offense as the underlying offense for purposes of sentencing.

Reviewing the district court’s interpretation of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo, 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e) (1988 & Supp. V 1993); see also United States v. Lara-Velasquez, 919 F.2d 946, 953 (5th Cir. 1990), we resolve this question of first impression in this Circuit and reject Dilworth’s argument. In United States v. Gonzalez, 2 F.3d 369 (11th Cir. 1993), the defendant also was convicted of harboring a fugitive who had failed to appear in court on a drug offense. Id. at 370. A warrant was issued for the fugitive’s failure to appear, and the fugitive was apprehended at the defendant’s home. Id. When the district court used the fugitive’s failure-to-appear charge as the underlying offense in sentencing under U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1, the government argued that the defendant primarily was an accessory to the drug offense and thus should have been sentenced on that basis. Id. at 371. The Eleventh Circuit agreed with the government’s contention, holding that the fugitive’s “primary goal” had been fleeing punishment for the drug offense, not the failure-to-appear offense. Id. at 373.

The bond jumper commits a second offense when he fails to appear for judicial proceedings and it [would be] odd, indeed, to impose what is in this and will be in most cases a significantly lighter penalty on one who harbors the dual offender than on one who hides a suspect from initial arrest.

Id. at 372. 4 We agree with the Eleventh Circuit’s analysis of this issue. The district court used Niekles’ drug offense correctly as the underlying offense in determining Dil-worth’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. § 2X3.1. Accordingly, we AFFIRM Dil-worth’s sentence.