In June 1997, Jose Arrellano-Garcia was arrested for selling methamphetamine. After making an initial court appearance and posting bond, he failed to appear at a subsequent court hearing and fled to Mexi *993 co. In March 2002, Arrellano-Gareia was arrested while attempting to enter the United States from Mexico. He pleaded guilty to distributing methamphetamine. See U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 841(b)(1)(B) (2000). The District Court 1 sentenced him to forty-six months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. On appeal, Arrellano-Gareia argues that the District Court clearly erred in enhancing his Guidelines range for obstructing justice. See U.S.S.G. § 8C1.1 (2002).

We conclude that the District Court did not clearly err in enhancing ArrellanoGarcia’s sentence under section 3C1.1. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n. 4(e) (2002) (providing non-exhaustive list of conduct to which enhancement applies including “escaping ... from custody before trial or sentencing; or willfully failing to appear, as ordered, for a judicial proceeding”); United States v. Young, 315 F.3d 911, 913 (8th Cir. 2003) (noting standard of review), cert, denied, — U.S. -, 123 S.Ct. 2108, 155 L.Ed.2d 1081 (2003). Arrellano-Garcia’s argument that his five-year flight delayed but did not impede the government’s investigation into his case is without merit. By its own terms § 3C1.1 applies when a defendant obstructs or impedes, or attempts to obstruct or impede, the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of an offense. See U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1; United States v. Billingsley, 160 F.3d 502, 506-507 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that obstruction-of-justice enhancement was warranted where defendant absconded after arrest but before indictment). In this ease, the government was unable to complete its prosecution of Arrellano-Gareia’s offense while he was a fugitive. See United States v. Smith, 62 F.3d 1073, 1079 (8th Cir. 1995) (holding that obstruction-of-justice enhancement applied where facts indicated that defendant actively impeded arrest and resolution of her case when she fled after being questioned), cert, denied, 516 U.S. 1098, 116 S.Ct. 826, 133 L.Ed.2d 769 (1996).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

A true copy.