the denial of a mitigating role adjustment where the defendant was held accountable only for the amount of drugs he personally carried); United States v. Lampkins, 47 F.3d 175, 180-81 (7th Cir. 1995) (same). The sentencing court was correct in placing Isienyi’s case within this long line of precedent. We recognize that circuits have taken differing approaches in applying § 3B1.2 to these types of cases. Compare, e.g., United States v. Rodriguez De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 942-44 (11th Cir.1999) (en banc) (agreeing with this Circuit that, “in determining a defendant’s role in the offense, a district court must measure the defendant’s role against the relevant conduct attributed to her in calculating her base offense level.”); United States v. James, 157 F.3d 1218, 1220 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Olibrices, 979 F.2d 1557,
holding that a courier convicted of possession with intent to distribute may be entitled to a mitigating role reduction even if his base offense level did not account for the amount of drugs involved in the larger trafficking scheme holding that an arithmetical error that increased a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights holding that arithmetical error that resulted in an increase to a defendants base offense level pursuant to the sentencing guidelines affected his substantial rights even though the resulting sentence was within the range for the correct offense level holding that when the relevant conduct of the larger conspiracy is not taken into account in establishing a defendants base offense level a reduction pursuant to ussg  3b12 is not warranted holding that a reduction for minor role in an offense cannot be awarded when the larger offense was not taken into account in setting the base level