Following a jury trial, Daniel Ray Sheeds was convicted of one count of possession of an unregistered firearm. The district court sentenced him to serve 27 months in prison and a three-year term of supervised release. Sheeds argues that his conviction is invalid due to flaws in his jury instructions. Sheeds has not established plain error in connection with his jury instructions, which track the language of the applicable pattern instruction and statute. See United States v. McClatchy, 249 F.3d 348, 357 (5th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Daniels, 252 F.3d 411, 414 (5th Cir. 2001). To the extent that Sheeds challenges the district court’s response to a query from the jury, this challenge is unavailing because the district court’s response was a “reasonably accurate” statement of law. See United States v. Jones, 132 F.3d 232, 243 (5th Cir. 1998). Sheeds has shown no error in connection with his conviction.

Sheeds likewise has shown no error in connection with his sentence. Contrary to his arguments, the district court properly calculated his base offense level. See U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(a)(5); 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a). Sheeds has not demonstrated that he was entitled to a reduction in his sentencing calculations for acceptance of responsibility. See United States v. Perez, 915 F.2d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1990).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.