offense or was responsible for organizing others for the purpose of carrying out the crime.” United States v. Yi, 704 F.3d 800, 807 (9th Cir.2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). We conclude that the district court committed two legal errors in conducting this analysis. First, the court did not address Washington’s control over others rse, consider departing from the applicable guidelines range if it believes the enhancement overstates the defendant’s culpability. See Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 92, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996). But when determining eligibility for the safety valve, the court must apply the enhancement according to its plain terms, without regard to departures. See United States v. Valencia-Andrade, 72 F.3d 770, 773-74 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Second, the court erred by importing the
holding that a defendant cannot collaterally challenge a prior conviction used to calculate criminal history points holding that 24 criminal history points was so high that even placement in category vi did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the defendants criminal past holding that a court calculating defendants criminal history points for purposes of safety valve eligibility must do so without considering departures holding a court may consider a defendants criminal history even if that history is included in the defendants criminal history category holding that an aggravated misdemeanor conviction under section 7191 is a felony for purposes of assessing criminal history points under ussg  4a12c