occasions, with an intervening period of several months between each arrest, his criminal history is not significantly overrepresented by considering the three offenses separately for the purpose of his criminal history category. C.Minimal Participation Mr. Hernandez’s argument regarding his minimal participation is without merit. He contends that the investigation that led to his arrest targeted other individuals with greater involvement and culpability. In awarding an adjustment for a defendant’s role in the offense, the Guidelines allow a court to consider the culpability of persons who are criminally responsible for the commission of an offense but who have not been convicted. See .U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 cmt. i; see also United States v. Bierley, 922 F .2d 1061, 1065 (3d Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). In addition, where the offense level grossly
recognizing potential upward adjustment beyond that provided by guidelines for aggravating role in the offense holding that counsel was not ineffective in failing to request a charge on the lesserincluded offense when the evidence showed either the commission of the completed offense as charged or the commission of no offense such that the defendant was not entitled to a charge on the lesser offense holding that the due process clause requires the responsible government or governmental agency to provide medical care to suspects in police custody who have been injured while being apprehended by police holding that a defendant convicted of a soleparticipant offense may nonetheless be entitled to a mitigating role adjustment recognizing that where there are other persons who are criminally responsible for the offense who have not been apprehended or have not been charged due to cooperation a sole defendant may be eligible for an upward or downward adjustment for role in the offense