he was a minor participant in some broader conspiracy that may have surrounded it.’ ” Id. at 787 (quoting United States v. Brown, 136 F.3d 1176, 1185-86 (7th Cir.1998)). Thus, as we made clear in United States v. Burnett, 66 F.3d 137 (7th Cir.1995), “[w]hen a courier is held accountable for only the amounts he carries, he plays a significant rather than a minor role in that offense,” id. at 140, and he is therefore not entitled to a mitigating role reduction. See also United States v. Cobblah, 118 F.3d 549, 552 (7th Cir.1997) (affirming the denial of a mitigating role adjustment where the defendant was not held “accountable for drug quantities beyond that which he picked up on that single day”); United States v. Uriostegui-Estrada, 86 F.3d 87, 90 (7th Cir.1996) (af (D.C.Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>), with, United States v. Isaza-Zapata, 148 F.3d
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 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 district court need not accept the governments recommendation of a minor role reduction holding government did not breach plea agreement where government provided information to probation department that would support higher base offense level and aggravated role but encouraged court not to consider such information and to calculate base offense level consistent with plea agreement 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