FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

DEC 22, 2010

JOHN LEY

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-13258 

Non-Argument Calendar

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 5:10-cr-00014-RS-LB-2

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee,

 versus

BRENDA LEE MCCALLISTER,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Northern District of Florida

 ________________________

(December 22, 2010)

Before HULL, WILSON and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Brenda Lee McCallister appeals her sentence of 128-months’ imprisonment

after pleading guilty under 21 U.S.C. § 846 to conspiracy to distribute and
possession with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a mixture and

substance containing methamphetamine, and more than 50 grams of actual

methamphetamine. On appeal, she argues that the district court committed clear

error by denying her request for a role reduction pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. 

She believes that the record entitles her to a four-level reduction as a minimal

participant in the conspiracy, or, alternatively, a two-level reduction as a minor

participant. We disagree and affirm.

We review a district court’s denial of a role reduction for clear error. United

States v. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d 1303, 1320 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct.

2123 (2010). “[T]he proponent of the downward adjustment bears the burden at

all times of establishing her role in the offense by a preponderance of the

evidence.” United States v. De Varon, 175 F.3d 930, 934 (11th Cir. 1999) (en

banc). The district court need not make any specific or supplemental findings

prior to its ultimate decision on a defendant’s role in an offense. Id. at 939.

Generally, a defendant is responsible for her own acts and those reasonably

foreseeable actions taken by others in furtherance of the jointly undertaken

criminal activity. See U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B). Nevertheless, a defendant may

2
be entitled to a role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. These reductions are

1

available for defendants who participate in the underlying offense in such a way

that makes them “substantially less culpable than the average participant.” 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.3(A) (emphasis added). 

Under § 3B1.2(a),“minimal participant[s]” are eligible for a four-level

reduction. This applies to those defendants that are “plainly among the least

culpable” of those involved in the group activity. U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(a), cmt. n.4. 

It can be inferred that a defendant is a minimal participant if she lacks an

understanding of the operation of the organization and the activities of others. See

id. Such reductions are to be given “infrequently.” Id.

A “minor participant” may be granted a two-level reduction. U.S.S.G.

§ 3B1.2(b). Such a designation is appropriate if a defendant is “less culpable than

most other participants, but [her] role could not be described as minimal.” 

U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2, cmt. n.5. 

 In full, U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 reads: 1

Based on the defendant's role in the offense, decrease the offense

level as follows:

(a) If the defendant was a minimal participant in any criminal

activity, decrease by 4 levels.

(b) If the defendant was a minor participant in any criminal

activity, decrease by 2 levels. 

In cases falling between (a) and (b), decrease by 3 levels.

3
The process for analyzing whether a defendant should receive a § 3B1.2

reduction is well settled. De Varon, 175 F.3d at 934. 

“First and foremost, the district court must measure the

defendant’s role against her relevant conduct, that is, the

conduct for which she has been held accountable under

U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3. The Guidelines and our case precedent

plainly require the district court to undertake this method

of analysis in every case where a role adjustment is at

issue. Second, where the record evidence is sufficient, the

district court may also measure the defendant’s conduct

against that of other participants in the criminal scheme

attributed to the defendant. These principles advance both

the directives of the Guidelines and our case precedent by

recognizing the fact-intensive nature of thisinquiry and by

maximizing the discretion of the trial court in determining

the defendant's role in the offense.” 

Id. (internal citations omitted). 

Here, McCallister failed to demonstrate that the district court committed

clear error. Although much of her argument focuses on the level of involvement

of her co-defendant, McCallister fails to diminish her own role in the admitted

conspiracy. McCallister repeatedly describes herself only as a “drug mule,” but

that label fails to capture her involvement in the enterprise. She completed five

sales of methamphetamine to one confidential informant in less than two weeks. 

More than 60 grams of the drugs and $4,700 dollars changed hands in 12 days. 

Furthermore, she made at least two trips with her co-defendant to purchase

4
methamphetamine from a supplier. McCallister admitted, in a signed statement,

that the government could prove that she conspired with others to possess and

distribute more than five-hundred grams of methamphetamine over a five-month

period. These undisputed facts demonstrate that McCallister’s role and the

relevant conduct attributed to her are the same. Therefore, the district court

committed no error in determining that a role reduction was not appropriate. 

After thoroughly reviewing the record, including the transcript of the

sentencing proceedings, we conclude that the district court engaged in a

meaningful consideration of McCallister’s request for a minimal participant or

minor participant reduction and committed no clear error. McCallister’s actual

role matched the conduct for which she is being held accountable. Despite her

repeated emphasis on the need to compare her role with that of her co-defendant, it

is always “possible that none are minor or minimal participants.” De Varon, 175

F.3d at 944. This is such a case.

AFFIRMED. 

5