### FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT MAY 06, 2003 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH

CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 02-15326 Non-Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket N

o. 02-00030-CR-004 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
EDWIN JETER, Defendant-Appe llant.

__________________________ Appeal from t

he United States D

istrict Court for th e Sout hern D istri ct of A labama

_________________________ (May 6, 2003) Before TJOFL

AT, BARKE

TT and HULL , Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant, a federal prisoner currently serving a 168-month sentence imposed following a plea of guilty to conspiracy to manufacture2

methamphe

tamine, in viol

ation 21 U.S.C. § 846, challenges his sentence on the ground that the distric

t court, in apply

ing the Sentencing G

uidelines, erred in denying him a minor role adjustment pu rsuant to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Appellant is a career offender. Under the Guidelines, a defendant is a career offender if the following three elements are present (as they are here):

(1) the defendant w

as at least eightee

n years old at the time the defen

dant commi

tted the instant offe

nse of conviction, (2) the

instant offense of c

onviction is a felony that is either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense, an d (3) the defendant h as at least two prior felony convictions of either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense. U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1. Wh ile a car eer offe nder’s c riminal histor y catego ry is alwa ys Category VI,

§ 4B1.1 indicates tha

t with respect to the

defendant’s offense level , as dis ting uish ed fro m his cr iminal hist ory cat egory, “[i]f an adjus tment f rom § 3E1.1 (Accepta

nce of Responsibility

) applies, [a cour

t must] decr

ease the offense level by the number of levels c orresponding to that adjustment.” U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1

. In contending that the court should have gran ted him a m

inor role adjustment unde

r § 4B1.1, appella

nt relies on the rule

of lenity. Th

e rule of lenity applies if a statute

– in this instance, a

sentencing guideline –

is ambiguous. United States v. J

ohnson , 155 F.3d 682, 685 (1 1th Cir. 1998). Be cause § 4B1.1,3

by its express te

rms, only a

uthorizes an adjust

ment based on acceptance of responsibility,

and does not menti

on the minor role

adjustment,

and since “the inclusion of one implies the exclusion of others,” United States v. Koonce , 991 F.2d 693, 698 (11th Ci

r. 1993), the guide

line is not ambiguo

us and the rule of lenity does not apply. Johnson , 155 F.3d at 685. In a previous opinion,

we appeared to j oin several sister c ircuits in holding that the minor r

ole adjustmen

t is not available to a

defendant sentence

d under the career offender provis ion. See id. at 684 & n.4 (citing t o the First, Seven

th, Eighth, and Ninth C

ircuits, all of w

hich have held that m

itigating role adju

stments do not apply in the c areer offender scenario). Toda

y we make

it clear that m

inor role adjustments are not av ailable to defendan ts sentenced under § 4B1.1. Appell ant’s se ntence is, acco rdingl y, AFFIRMED.