of heroin into the United States, but his actions were minor relative to the other participants in the international drug smuggling scheme. The sentencing court refused to consider Isienyi’s role in comparison to the conduct of other participants in the drug smuggling scheme because Isienyi was charged and held accountable only for the drugs that he personally transported into the United States. Isienyi concedes that the law of this Circuit is firmly established against him. We recently rejected an identical argument in United States v. Griffin, 150 F.3d 778 (7th Cir.1998), where we reiterated that “[i]n determining the applicability of § 3B1.2, ‘the relevant inquiry is whether the defendant was a minor participant in the crime for which he was convicted, not wh 36, 240 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Snoddy, 139 F.3d 1224,
holding that when the indictment charges that a certain minimum quantity of drugs is involved in the offense proof of that quantity is a fourth element of the offense holding that uncharged amounts of drugs may be included as relevant conduct even if the defendant never actually possessed or distributed the drugs holding that even if a courier is charged with importing only the quantity of drugs that he actually carried the sentencing court must examine the relative conduct of other participants in the scheme in assessing the couriers relative culpability holding that the quantity of drugs involved in an offense does not support a downward departure because the legislature intended the quantity of drugs to be a determining factor in varying penalties holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged