Does Defendant have any grounds to argue that the District Court erred by failing to determine whether the other four participants in the counterfeiting scheme were "criminally responsible"?

1 Defendant also contends that the district court erred by failing to determine whether the other four participants in the scheme were "criminally responsible." Defendant is referring to the Commentary to 3B1.1 which states that "a 'participant' is a person who is criminally responsible for the commission of the offense." U.S.S.G. 3B1.1 comment. (n.1). This argument has no merit, however, because "[t]he district court need not make specific findings of fact in support of an upward role adjustment." United States v. Ponce, 51 F.3d 820, 826 (9th Cir.1995). In any event, five men, including Defendant, pleaded guilty to charges resulting from the counterfeiting scheme. Thus, five defendants were found criminally responsible.