James William Wiggins appeals from the drug-related sentence imposed by the district court. Wiggins contends the district court should have granted him a reduction for acceptance of responsibility despite the application of an enhancement for obstruction of justice. We disagree. In our view, the district court, having considered the circumstances of Wiggins’s flight between arraignment and sentencing, did not commit clear error in denying the reduction. See United States v. Honken, 184 F.3d 961, 968 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1056, 120 S.Ct. 602, 145 L.Ed.2d 500 (1999); United States v. Shinder, 8 F.3d *510 633, 635 (8th Cir. 1993). We thus affirm Wiggins’s sentence.