Juan Rodriguez-Vasquez appeals his conviction and 84-month sentence for aiding and abetting the importation of cocaine and aiding and abetting the possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. Rodriguez-Vasquez argues that our pattern jury instruction on the defense of duress places a constitutionally impermissible burden on the defendant, and he asserts that the instruction violates principles of equal protection because other circuits require a defendant raising a defense of duress to make a less onerous showing. He contends that his sentence is excessive because the district court erroneously determined that he was not entitled to a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Rodriguez-Vasquez’s challenge to the burden of proof required to establish the defense of duress is foreclosed by Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1, 126 S.Ct. 2437, 2442-48, 165 L.Ed.2d 299 (2006). His contention that our pattern instruction on duress violates principles of equal protection fails because he does not suggest that the challenged instruction has a discriminatory purpose. See United States v. Chavez, 281 F.3d 479, 486-87 (5th Cir. 2002). We affirm the sentencing court’s determination that Rodriguez-Vasquez was not entitled to a reduction in offense level for acceptance of responsibility. United States v. Solis, 299 F.3d 420, 458 (5th Cir. 2002).

AFFIRMED.