v. Worthy, 915 F.2d 1514, 1516 (11th Cir.1990). We are persuaded by the plain language of § 3E1.1 to follow the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Valencia, 957 F.2d 153 (5th Cir.1992), and hold that § 3E1.1 does not provide for such a reduction. In Valencia, the district court expressly found that the defendant had partially accepted responsibility and, therefore, was entitled to a one-point reduction, rather than the two-point reduction provided for in § 3El.l(a). The Fifth Circuit reversed, holding that “U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1 does not contemplate either a defendant’s mere partial acceptance of responsibility or a district court’s being halfway convinced that a defendant accepted responsibility.” Id. at 156; see also United States v. Farrier, 948 F.2d 1125, 1127 (9th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). We agree with the Fifth Circuit’s reasoning
holding reduction of sentence under  3582c2 based on amendment not listed in  1b110c is not authorized holding that the guidelines do not provide for an acceptance of responsibility reduction other than by two levels therefore reversing fourlevel reduction holding that a defendant is not eligible for a sentence reduction under section 3582c2 when the application of that amendment does not result in a lower sentencing range holding that the limitations on the degree of a sentence reduction under  3582c2 are mandatory holding that freeman is inapplicable to defendants sentenced under  4b11 seeking a sentence reduction based on amendments to the guidelines for crack cocaine offenses