Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant on drug charges based in part on statements made by defendant regarding alleged involvement with crack cocaine contained in proffer agreement with govt., even though govt. had assured defendant that it would not use said statements against him as long as he did not make any subsequent statements that were inconsistent with statements made in proffer. Record contained other evidence regarding defendant’s involvement with crack cocaine so as to support Dist. Ct.’s relevant conduct calculation, such that Dist. Ct. would have imposed same sentence without reference to statements made in proffer. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly deny defendant credit for acceptance of responsibility where defendant had received obstruction of justice enhancement for having fled jurisdiction for 4-year period prior to his subsequent re-arrest and eventual entry of guilty plea.