a defendant’s involvement is comparable to that of an “average participant.” Buen-rostro, 868 F.2d at 138. Defendant allowed his property to be used as a stash house. He was present for the first delivery and was kept abreast of subsequent deliveries. One of the Government’s witnesses testified that the organization could not function without Defendant’s “shop.” Furthermore, Defendant was paid for each delivery. Most importantly, however, Defendant was not held responsible for the entire criminal history of the drug organization. Rather, his sentence was based on conduct in which he was directly involved, namely drug storage on his property. As such, his role was not minor, but actually coextensive with the conduct for which he was held accountable. See Marmolejo, 106 F.3d at 1217 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Atanda, 60 F.3d 196, 199
holding that the defendant was carrying a gun because he transported it within reach and immediately available for use  holding that minor participant determination must be made relative to all participants in the criminal scheme for which the defendant is charged holding that the defendant was entitled to counsel when the offense for which he was tried could result in the imposition of a jail sentence holding that because only the drugs defendant actually transported were attributed to him in calculating his sentence he was not a minor participant in relation to the offense holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs