With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the district court erred by denying a two-level downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility. Factual findings and the district court’s decision to adjust downward for acceptance of responsibility are reviewed for clear error. See Draper, 996 F.2d at 984; United States v. Velasco-Medina, 305 F.3d 839, 854 (9th Cir.2002). This contention also lacks merit. Arevalo-Nuno’s conduct warranted an upward adjustment for obstruction of justice, and the district court did not clearly err in finding that he failed to express sincere remorse. See U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 4 (stating that conduct resulting in an enhancement for obstruction of justice ordinarily indicates that the defendant has not accepted responsibility); United States v. Hopper, 27 F.3d 378, 383 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). AFFIRMED. ** This disposition is not

A: holding that the governments decision not to move for an acceptance of responsibility adjustment under ussg  3ellb cannot be based on an unconstitutional motive or for reasons not rationally related to a legitimate government interest
B: holding that adjustment for acceptance of responsibility is appropriate where the district court rebuffed a defendants attempts to plead guilty
C: holding that a defendant should not receive an acceptance of responsibility adjustment when there is contradicting obstructive conduct
D: holding that a defendant who denied involvement of codefendant during codefendants trial had intentionally misled law enforcement officers and should not receive a downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility
C.