With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 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

A: 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
B: 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
C: 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
D: holding that district court need not accept the governments recommendation of a minor role reduction
A.