With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Isienyi contends that the sentencing court erred in denying his request for a mitigating role adjustment pursuant to § 3B1.2. Second, he contends that the sentencing court erred in ordering the $2,000 fine. Discussion A. Isienyi argues that he should have been awarded a two- to four-level downward adjustment in his offense level because his role in the offense was minimal or at least minor. Section 3B1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines provides a range of adjustments based on an individual’s miti gating role in the offense. Subsection (a) instructs the sentencing court to decrease an individual’s offense level by four levels if the individual “was a minimal participant” in the criminal activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a). The commentary explains that subsection (a) applies to (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). We believe, nonetheless, that this Circuit’s

A: holding that a defendant convicted of a soleparticipant offense may nonetheless be entitled to a mitigating role adjustment
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that something more than mere presence in the car in which drugs are found is required to sustain a conviction for the substantive offense of possession with intent to distribute
B.