Brian Kolehmainen appeals the 96-month •within-guidelines sentence imposed in connection with his guilty-plea conviction for illegally possessing a machinegun. Kolehmainen argues that the district court erred by denying a reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1. Kolehmainen contends that the district court denied a reduction for acceptance of responsibility because he could not recall the conversations with the undercover officer wherein he talked about obtaining more machineguns to be sold for transportation to Mexico. He further argues that these conversations were not relevant conduct because they occurred after the offense of conviction. Therefore, he asserts that the court erred in denying the reduction based on the finding that he falsely denied relevant conduct.

A defendant may receive a reduction in offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 if he “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” § 3El.l(a). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that the reduction is warranted. United States v. Watson, 988 F.2d 544, 551 (5th Cir. 1993). “While the district court’s findings under the sentencing guidelines are generally reviewed for clear error, a determination whether a defendant is enti-tied to an adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed with even greater deference.” United States v. Buchanan, 485 F.3d 274, 287 (5th Cir. 2007). We will affirm a sentencing court’s decision not to award a reduction” pursuant to § 3E1.1 unless the decision is “without foundation.” United States v. Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d 204, 211 (5th Cir. 2008) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In the factual resume, Kolehmainen admitted that, at the time of the offense, he instructed the undercover officer to contact Kolehmainen’s accomplice if he wished to acquire more guns. During his interview with the probation officer, Koleh-mainen denied that he intended to conduct future transactions with the officer. In light of his statements to the probation officer denying this conduct and given the deference owed to a district court’s findings on acceptance of responsibility, Koleh-mainen has not shown that the district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility is without foundation. See Juarez-Duarte, 513 F.3d at 211.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.