Adan Lopez pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The presentence report concluded Lopez would be eligible for “safety valve” relief under U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2, but for his failure to disclose to the government all information he knew about the offense. See id. § 5C1.2(a)(5). Lopez did not object to this conclusion in the presentence report. At sentencing, after defense counsel told the district court * there was no reason the court should not proceed to sentence Lopez, the district court sentenced Lopez at the bottom of the applicable sentencing guideline range. Later in the hearing, Lopez raised the issue of a safety valve reduction. Lopez did not explain why he waited until after pronouncement of the sentence before raising the objection. The district court refused to entertain the objection, and completed the sentencing process. Lopez now appeals the district court’s refusal to entertain the safety valve issue. Having carefully reviewed the record and the applicable law, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing the entertain Lopez’s un[*62] timely objection. See United States v. Jones, 70 F.3d 1009, 1010 (8th Cir.1995) (per curiam).

We thus affirm the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47 B.