### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10502

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. CUR T I S ONE AL R HI NE D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A pp eal f

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c t of Texas

B ef ore W IE N E R , G A R Z A , an d E L R O D , C i rcui t Ju dg es. W IE N E R , C i rcui t Ju dg e: D efen da n t

- A pp el l an t C u rt i s O n eal R h i n e w as convic t ed, based on h i s pl ea of gu i l ty w i th ou t a p l e a a g r e em en t, on on e cou n t of po sse ssion w i th i n ten t t o d istr ib u te 1 .89 g ra m s o f co ca in e b a se a n d on e co u n t of fe lon in p o ss e ss ion of a f i rearm . R h i n e n o w a pp eal s hi s s en t en ce, contending that t h e di st ri ctcourt
c l ear l y e r r ed w hen i t det er m i ned t hat hi s ear l i erdr u g-rel at ed ac t i vi t y w as rel evan t condu ctf

or s e n t en ci n g pu rposes. C on vi n ced t h at R h i n e’ s earl i er c o nduc t c anno t pr o pe r l y be c o ns i de r e d r e l e va nt c o nduc t f o r hi s s e nt e nc i ng o n t he
o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n , w e re v e r s e a n d re m a n d fo r re -s e n te n c in g . United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D September

29, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10502

The office r re lea sed the o therpassen ge r, L avellB uch anan, at th e sce ne without 1 chargingh er. Moor e, whowas o nlych arged in Cou nt 2 of th e indictment, also plea ded guilty without 2 a pl ea agreement. He is not a partyto this appeal. 2 I . F A CT S A ND P ROC E E DI NGS A . Th e O f

f ens e of C onvi ct i on Lat e i n Oct o be r 2 00 7, a Fo r t W o r t h po l i c e o f f i c e r c o nduc t ed a r o ut i ne traff i c stop of a ve h i cl e in w h i ch R h i n e w a s occu p yin g t h e f ron t pa sse n ge r sea t. T h e r e w ere tw o othe r i n d i vid u a l s i n th e veh i cl e at th e t i m e of th e st op : A lg ie D e o n M o o r e , t he dr i ve r , and Lav e l lBuc hana n, a fe m al e pa s s e nge r s e at e d i n t he
r e ar . W he n t he o f

f i c e r s m e l l e d m ar ij uan a i n t he v e hi c l e , he a s ke d Rhi ne
w h e th e r h e ha d been sm oking. W h en R h i n e repl i ed that he h ad sm oked
m arij u an a earl i er t h at eveni n g, t h e of f i cer asked hi m t o st ep ou t of t h e veh i cl e. Af t e r a b ackg r o und c he c k r e ve al e d t hatRhi ne ha d s e ve r alo ut s t and i ng
w arran t s f

or hi s arr est , t h e of

f i cer t ook h i m i n t o cu st ody a n d cond u ct ed a search of t h e veh i cl e, di scoveri n g t w o f i rearm s un der t h e passen ger seatw h ere R h i n e, a conv i ct ed fel on , ha d been seat ed. Th e of f i cer t h en t ook both R h i n e an d M oore

— al so a c on vi ct ed felo n — to t h e F ortW ort h ci t y j ai l , w h ere an i n t ak e searc h reveal ed a sm al lpl a stic b a g contai n i n g 1. 89 gram s of coc ai n e base ( crack
c oc ai ne) c onc eal ed i n R hi ne’ s analc avi t y. 1 Th e g r and j ury r et urned a t w o- c ount i ndi c t m ent c hargi ng R hi ne w i t h ( 1) pos se ss i on w i t h i nt ent t o di st r i but e 1. 89 gram s of coc ai ne base , i n vi ol at i on of 21 U

. S. C

. § 841( a) ( 1) and (b) ( 1) ( C ) ( “ C ount 1" ) , and ( 2) pos se ss i on o f a f i r ear m by a felo n , in v iola tion of 1 8 U .S .C

. § § 9 2 2 (g)(1), 92 4 (a )(1), an d ( a )( 2 ) ( “C o u n t 2 "). R h i n e p l ea d ed gu i l ty to bo th cou n ts w i th ou t a p l ea ag ree m en t. 2 B. The “ Fi s h Bow l ” D r ug- Tr af f i c ki ng Ri ng I n M ay2 00 6

— a ppr o xi m atel y 17 m o nt hs b e f o r e Rhi ne ’ s a r r e s t f

o r t he in s ta n t d r u go ffe n s e — a n o n g o in gF B I in v e s tig a tio n k n o w n a s th e “F is h B o w l”N o. 08- 10502

The term “ Fi sh B owl” refers to asmall n eighbo rhoo d about three mile s southea st of 3 downtown Fort Wo rth, borde rin g the western edge of CobbP ark. Acco rdin g to po lice , a street g a n gc ontrolle d th e n ei ghb orh oo d b yke ep in gth e onlytwoe ntr a n ce s s u rrou n de d b yl oo ko u ts , making itdifficult forpolice to c onduct asurprise raid

. In these statements, the indivi dual s assistin g in the investigatio n commonly refer to 4 Rhineonlybyhis stre et n ame — “Pushe ad,” or “Pu s Head.” One in dividual, howeve r, stat ed that h e h ad p urch ased thre e tofour kilograms of crack cocaine from someon e he knew only as “Pu mpkin Hea d.” As ther e was no othe r mention of a“Pumpkin Head” in conn ectio n with the investigatio n, SA Coffindaffe r a ssumed th at this indivi dualwas r eferringto Rhine

. Althou gh Rhine stated that he had bee n rele ased from prison on parol e in 20 05, 5 recor ds from the Tex as Department of C rimin al Justice indicate that h e was in fact rele ased on October11 , 20 04. 3 i nve s t i ga t i o n c ul m i nat e d i n a l ar ge - s c al e dr ug r ai d i n Fo r t W o r t h, Te xa s . The rai d resul t ed i n t h e i n di ct m en t s of m ore t h an 30 i n di vi d u a ls for a v ari et y of
c r i m i nalo f

fe ns e s , m o s t o f

w hi c h i nvo l ve d d r ug t r af f i c ki ng. Af

t e r c o nduc t i ng 3 po s t

- ar r e s t i nt e r vi e w s w i t h m anyo f t he i ndi vi dua l s a ppr eh en ded dur i ng t he
r ai d, FB I Spec i alA gentJ. C of f i ndaf fer( “ SA C of

f i ndaf fer ” ) r epo r t ed t hat s eve r al i n di vi du al s h ad i m pl i cat ed R h i n e i n t h e cr i m i n al drug act i vi t y. A s agen t s w ere 4
u n successf

u li n com pl et i n g a control l e d d r ug bu y f rom R h i n e, he w as not c h arged al on g w i t h t h e ot h er Fi sh B ow lparti ci pa n t s. A fte r R h in e ’ s a r r e s t in th e in s ta n t c a s e , S A C o ffin d a ffe r re in itia te d h is i nves t i gat i on i nt o Rh i ne’ s par t i c i pat i on i n t he Fi sh Bow ldr ug- t r af f i c ki ng r i ng. S A C o ffin d a ffe r fir s t in te r v ie w e d R h in e , w h o s ta te d th a t h e h a d m o v e d in to h is
m oth er’ s h ou se se ve ra lm on th s after th e F i sh B ow larre sts to “ l a y lo w ” an d to
a v o id g e tt in gin tr o u b le

. R h in e s a id th a t h e h a d b e e n u n e m p lo y e d s in c e h is
r el eas e f

r om s t at e pr i so n i n 2005, ye t w as unabl e t o e xpl ai n how he had
s upp o r t ed h i m sel f, hi s c hi l dr e n, o r hi s dr ug hab i t dur i ng t hatt i m e . Rhi ne 5 f u rt h er c l ai m ed that h e h ad n ot sol d an y n arcot i cs or posses sed an y gu n s s i n ce hi s 2 00 5 r e l e as e . Ac c o r di ng t o Rhi ne , t he g uns f o und du ri n g t h e se ar c h o f t he
v e h ic le h a d b e lo n g e d to M o o r e , e v e n th o u g h R h in e a c k n o w le d g e d th a t h is fi n ge rp ri n ts m i gh t be fo u n d o n on e of the f i rea rm s be ca u se h e h a d l oa d ed i t.N o. 08- 10502

4 Rhi ne a l s o st at e d t hatb o t h he a nd M o o r e ha d f i r s t m e t Buc hana n, a c r ac kc o c a in e u s e r , w h e n th e y p ic k e d h e r u p fr o m a s e r v ic e s ta tio n s h o r tly b e fo r e th e ir
a rres t. Af t e r i nt e r vi e w i ng Rhi ne , SA C o f f i nda f fe r c o nduc t e d a s e r i e s o f f o l l o w - up i n t ervi ew s w i t h t h e i n di vi du al s w h o h ad i n i t i al l y i m pl i cat ed R h i n e i n t h e F i sh Bo wld r u g - t r a f

f i c k i n g r i ng, q ue s t i o ni ng t he m a bo ut t he i r e xp e r i e nc e s w i t h Rhi ne bef ore t h e F i sh B ow lraid a n d theirensu i n g arrest s. O n e i n f orm an t i n di cat ed t h at he ha d p u rch a se d a p p roxi m atel y 15 gram s of coc ai n e base f

rom R h i n e on a s i ngl e o c c as i on; anot her i ndi c at ed t hat he had r ec ei ved approx i m a t el y 62 gr am s o f

c o c ai ne b as e f

r o m Rhi ne ev eryw e e k f o r a l m o s t t hr e e m o nt hs ; a nd a t h i rd i n di cat ed that he h ad regul arl y cooked betw een f i ve an d s i x kil ogram s of pow der coc ai n e i n t o cr ack cocai n e f or R h i n e over a peri od of severalm on t h s. A c c o r d in gto th e s e in fo r m a n ts , R h in e w a s o n e o f th e p r im a r y , la r g e -s c a le
s u p p l i e r s o f

c r a c k co c ai ne t o t h e mi d

- l e v e lF i s h Bo wld e a l e r s p r i o r t o t h e F BI
r ai d. S A C of

f i n da f fer al so i n t ervi ew ed La vel l B u cha n an , t h e pa ssenger seat ed i n t h e back of M oore’ s vehi cl e at t h e t i m e of R h i n e’ s a rr e st. B u cha n an st ated t h at s h e ha d i n i t i al l y w al ked t o a ser vi ce s t ati on t o pu rchase beer bu t deci ded t o p u rchase crack cocai n e inst ead w h en sh e learned t h at R h i n e an d M oore w ere s e l l i ng i t f

r o m a da r k- c o l o r e d va n i n t he pa r ki ng l o t
. Ac c o r di ng t o Buc hana n, s he di d notknow ei t her R hi ne o r M oo r e b ef or e t hat m ee t i ng, duri ng w hi c h she had agreed t o pu rchase f i ve dol l ars of crack cocai n e f rom t h em . B u cha n an sta ted t hats he , Rhi ne , a nd M o o r e w e r e dr i vi ng t o he r a pa r t m e nt t o c o m pl e t e t he t r a n s a c t i o n w h e n p o l i c e s t o p p e d t h e m. C . T h e P re- Se n t en ce R ep ort Af t e r r e vi e w i ng t he e nt i r e r e c o r d a nd t he s t at e m e nt s m ad e to SA C off i n d a ff er, th e p rob a ti on off

i cer w ho c om pi l ed t he Pre

- Sent enc e Rep ort ( “P S R ”) concl u ded t h at R h i n e’ s earl i er drug-r el ated act i vi t i es w ere r el evan t condu ctf orN o. 08- 10502

Altho ugh the Guideline s in dicated asentencing r an ge o f upto 365months, th e 6 maximum s en t encefor Cou nt 1 i s li mited bystatute to 2 40 month s an d th e maxi mum sente nce fo rC ou nt 2 i s li mited to 1 20 month s, thu s providin g for amaximum statut ory se nten ce of

no morethan 360 mont hs if imp os ed torun cons ecut ively. U. S. S. G. § 5 G1 .2 (d) (2 0 0 7) (“I f th e se nte n ceimp os edonth e co u nt carryin gth e high es t 7 statut orymaximum is l ess th an the total punishment, th en the sente nce imposed on oneor more of the othercounts shall run con secutive ly , but onlyto the extentn ecessary to produce ac omb in edse nte n cee qu al toth e to tal pu nis h me nt. ”)

. 5 s e n t e n c in gp u r p o s e s . S p e c if ic a ll y , t h e p r o b a t io n o ff ic e r d e d u c e d th a t R h in e ’s al l e ge d p ar t i c i pa t i o n i n t he Fi s h Bowl dr ug- t r af f i c ki ng r i ng w as “ al lpa r t o f t he
s a m e co u r s e o f c o n d u c t o r co m m o n s c h e m e [ o r ] p la n a s th e o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n .” T o d eterm i n e th e t ota l a m ou n t of d ru gs i n vo l ve d i n th i s releva n t con d u ct, t he pr obat i on o f

f i c erc r edi t ed t he t es t i m ony o f t he i nf or m ant w ho h ad st at ed t hat h e ha d reg u l a rl y co ok ed be tw ee n f i ve an d si x k i l og ra m s of po w d er co ca i n e into
c r ac k c o c ai ne f

o r Rhi ne o ve r a pe r i o d o f s e ve r alm o nt hs

. Bas i ng he r c al c ul at i o ns on t hi s i nf

or m at i on, t he pr obat i on o f f i c erc onc l uded t hat R hi ne had pos se ss ed at l east 4. 5 kil ogram s of crack cocai n e du ri n g t h e course of hi s al l eged parti ci pa t i on i n t he Fi s h Bowl dr ug- t r af f i cki n g o pe r at i o ns — a f i gur e t hat , a c c o r di ng t o t he p rob a ti on off

i cer, rep rese n ted a “ve ry con serv a ti ve esti m a te” th a t s h e m a d e to avoid dou bl e- coun t i n g dru g am ou n t s. P u rsuan t t o t h e U n i t ed S t ates S en t en ci n g G u id e li n es ( “ G u i del i n es” or

“ U

. S

. S

. G

. ” ) Secti on 2D 1. 1, t h e p robati on off i cer cal cul ated R h i n e’ s B ase O f fen se Levelt o b e 3 8. Fact or i ng i n R hi ne ’ s a cceptanc e o f r es ponsibi l i t y, hi s c r i m i nal h i st ory rec ord, an d h i s possessi on of a f i rearm du ri n g com m i ssi on of t h e of fen se, th e p rob a ti on off

i cer d eterm i n ed th a t R h i n e’ s T ota lO ff en se L ev el w a s 37 w i th a C r i m i nal H i st or y C at ego r y of I V , pro duci ng a G ui del i nes r ange of 292 t o 3 65
m on th s i m p ri son m en t. T h e G u i d eli n es ca l l ed for R h i n e’ s sen ten ces o n C ou n ts 6 1 an d 2 to be i m posed consecuti vel y, bu t on l y t o t h e extent n ecess ary t o produ ce a com b i n ed sen ten ce eq u a lto h i s total m a xim u m pu n i sh m en t. 7N o. 08- 10502

In a d diti o n , Rhi n ew a sal s oarr e s t e dtwic ei nc o n n e c ti o nw itho th e rdru g - r e late d 8 offen ses, althou ght he s e arre sts did not lea d to convicti ons: (1) I n 199 3, h e was arre sted fo r possessionof crack cocaine ; an d (2) in 199 8, h e was arre sted fo r po ssession of marij uan a. 6 R h i n e ti m ely fi l ed a n o b j ection to th e P S R

. H i s p ri m a ry o b j ection w a s to t he c o nc l us i o n t hat h i s a l l e ge d p ar t i c i pa t i o n i n t he Fi s h Bowl dr ug- t r af f i c ki ng
r i ng w as r e l e va nt c o nduc t f o r s e nt e nc i ng o n hi s o f fe ns e o f c o nvi c t i o n. Rhi ne in sis te d th a t a n y p a rticip a tion in th e F ish B o w l i n cid e n t w a s n e ith e r p a rt o f a
com m on sch em e o r pl an no r pa r t o f t he s am e c o ur s e o f

c o nduc t a s t he i ns t ant beh avior

. R h i n e con t en ded t h at t h e act i vi t i es not on l y l acked com m on accom pl i ces, com m on v i ct i m s, a com m on p u rpose, or a com m on m o dus o pe r andi , but al so sho w ed no evi denc e of t em por al pro xi m i t y, si m i l ar i t y, or regul ar i t y. R h i n e al so obj ect ed to t h e P S R ’ s c on si derati on of fact s t h at w ere nei t h er adm i t t ed by hi m norf ound beyo nd a r eas onabl e do ubt by a j ury, c ont endi ng t hat t h e courtw ou l d vi ol ate hi s Si xth A m en dm en t ri gh t s by i n creasi n g h i s s en t en ce ba s e d o n s uc h i nf

o r m at i o n. I n re s po ns e t o R hi ne ’ s ob j e c t i o ns , t he pr o ba t i o n of f i c e r f i l e d a n Adde ndum t o t h e P S R , in w h ic h she decl i n ed to credi t t h e obj ect i on s oram en d h er G u i del i n es c al cul ati on s. I n si st i n g th a t R h i n e’ s earl i er drug-r el ated act i vi t i es
w er e r el evantc onduct , t he pr obat i on o f f i c ervo i c ed t he o pi ni on t hat R hi ne “ has pa r t i c i pa t e d i n dr ug- r e l at e d a c t i vi t i e s s i nc e a t least 1 99 3. ” I n pa r t i c ul ar , t he proba t i on of

f i cer ci t ed R h i n e’ s three p re- F i sh B ow lcon vi ct i on s f or drug-r el ated cri m es, noti n g t h at ( 1) i n 199 3, R h i n e pl ead ed gu i l t y t o possess i on of cr ack cocai n e w i t h i n t en t t o del ive r, ( 2) i n 199 9, he p l ead ed gu i l t y t o possess i on of
m arij u an a, an d ( 3) i n 2 0 0 2, he p l ead ed gu i l t y t o possess i on of a contr ol l ed
s ubs t anc e . Des pi t e ha vi ng no di r e c t e vi de nc e t hatRhi ne ha d e nga ge d i n a ny

8 cri m i n al act i vi t y — m u ch l ess dru g act i vi t y — betw een M ay 20 06 a n d O ct ober 200 7, t h e probati on off i cer n evert h el ess f

ou n d p ersuasi ve t h e ab sence of “e v id e n c e th a t [h e ] c o m p le te ly re m o v e d h im s e l f fr o m th a t t y p e o f life s ty le .”N o. 08- 10502

7 A c c or di ng t o t he proba t i on of f i c er , R hi ne l i kel y w oul d have bee n di st r i but i ng a l arge vol u m e of

drug s over t h at peri od i f not f or “t h e facttha t m ostof t h e l arger
s c al e de al e r s ha d a l r e ad y be e n a r r e s t e d f o r , a nd c o nvi c t e d o f, fe de r aldr ug
v i o l a t i o n s . ” D e c l i n i n gt o c r e d i t Rh i n e ’ s m o v e i n t o h i s mo t h e r ’ s h o u s e t o “ l a y l o w”
as a v ol untar y de par t ure f r om cr i m e, the pr obat i on of f i c eri nst ead s urm i se d t hat Rhi ne ha d s i l e nt l y har bo r e d i nt e nt i o ns t o “ r e s um e hi s dr ug t r af f i c ki ng act i vi t i es. ” Th e probati on of f i cer concl u ded t h at Rhi ne ’ s pa r t i ci pa t i on i n t h e F i sh B o w ld r u g - t r a f

f i c k i n gr i n ga n d h i s o f fe n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n w e r e a l lp a r t o f t h e s a me c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t o rco m m o n s c h e m e o r p la n . R h i n e t i m el y obj ect ed to t h e A dd en du m , again assert i n g t h at hi s al l eged pa rt i ci pa t i on i n t h e F i sh B ow ldrug

- t raf f i cki n g ri n g w as not r el evan t condu ctf or pur po s e s o f

s e nt e nc i ng o n t he o f fe ns e o f c o nvi c t i o n. D . Se nt e nc i ng T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a d o p t e d t h e f i n d i n g s o f

t h e P S R a n d t h e A d d e n d u m, o ve r r ul i ng Rhi ne ’ s o bj e c t i o ns t o b o t h. The c o ur t s ai d t hat“ al lo f t he t r ans ac t i o ns t h at w ere taken into accoun t by the probati on of f i cer w ere s u f

f i ci en t l y conn ect ed
o r r e la te d to e a ch oth e r to w a rr a n t t h e c o n clu sio n th a t th e y w e re a p a rt o f a
s i ngl e e pi s o de o r s pr e e o r ong o i ng s e r i e s of of fe ns e s . ” Des pi t e t he a bs e nc e o f a ny recor d evi den ce, ei t h er di rector ci rcum st an t i al , t h atR h i n e ha d d eal t drug s s i n ce t he e nd of

t he Fi sh Bow lope r at i ons , t he go ver nm ent s t at ed o n t he r ec or d that t h ere w as no i n d ica tion th at R h i n e ha d st opp ed sel l i n g dru gs i n t h e peri od betw een t h e F i sh B ow larres t s and hi s of fen se of convic t i on . T h e court exp l ai n ed t h at i t ha d taken t h i s i n t o consi deration in m ak i n g i t s r el evan t

- cond u ct d e te r m in a tio n . T h e co u r t t h e n o v e r r u le d R h in e ’ s o th e r o b je c tio n s , in c lu d in gh is
c o n te n tio n th a t th e S ix th A m e n d m e n t p r e v e n te d t h e c o u r t fr o m in c r e a s in gh is
se nt enc i ng r ange bas ed o n fac t s t hat w er e ne i t her adm i t t ed byhi m norf ound by a j ury.N o. 08- 10502

United States v. Peterson , 1 0 1 F .3 d 3 7 5 , 3 8 4( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 6). 9 United States v. Hinojo sa , 4 8 4 F

. 3 d 3 3 7 , 3 4 0 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 7) (i nt e r n al quota tion 10 mark s an d citationo mitt ed); se e Un ited St atesv . Wa ll , 180 F.3 d 641 , 644(5th Cir. 1 999) (“A district co urt’s determinationof what constitute s relevant conduct for purpose s of sente ncing i sr evi e w e df

o rc l e are rr o r . ”) ; U

ni te d States v. Bry ant , 99 1 F .2d 1 71, 177(5th Cir. 1 993) (“[S]pecific factu al finding s regarding relev antconductare revi ewed o n appeal o nlyfor clear erro r. ”)

. United States v. San ders , 9 4 2 F .2 d 8 9 4 , 8 9 7( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 1 ).

11 U.S.S.G. § 2D1 .1. 12 8 A dop t i n g t h e G u i del i n es c al cul ati on s s et f ort h in th e P S R , t h e di st ri ct
c our t se nt enc ed R hi ne t o t he s t at ut or y m axi m um per i od o f i m pri so nm ent — 240
m o n th s a s to C o u n t 1 a n d 1 2 0 m o n th s a s to C o u n t 2 , to ru n co n s e c u tiv e ly

. R h i n e t i m el y ap pea l ed h i s s en t en ce. H e now urges t h at ( 1) th e di st ri ct court com m i t t ed cl ear error by c h aract eri zi n g h i s earl i er drug-r el ated act i vi t i es as rel evan t condu ctf or s en t en ci n g pu rposes, an d ( 2) even i f t h ose act i vi t i es w ere
r e l e va nt c o nduc t , t he co ur t vi o l at e d hi s Si xt h Am e ndm e nt r i ght s b y i nc r e as i ng hi s s e nt e nc e b as e d o n fac t s ne i t he r a dm i t t e d b y Rhi n e n or p r o ve d b e yo nd a
r eas onabl e do ubt t o a j ury. II. A N A L Y S IS A . St andard of

R evi ew A d is tr ic t c o u r t’s in te r p r e ta tio n a n d a p p lic a tio n o f th e G u id e lin e s is
r e vi e w e d d e novo an d i t s fact u al deter m i n ati on s are revi ew ed for cl ear err or. 9

“A f i n d i n gb y t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h a t u n a dj u d i c a t e d c o n d u c t i s p a r t o f t h e s a me course of

condu ctor com m on schem e or pl an i s a fact u al deter m i n ati on subj ect t o revi ew . . . u n der t h e cl earl y erroneou s stand ard. ” “A fact u al fi n di n g i s not 10
c le a r ly e r r o n e o u s a s lo n ga s it is p la u s ib le in lig h t o f th e re c o r d a s a w h o le .” 11 B . R el eva n t C on du ct A de fe nda nt c o nvi c t e d o f a dr ug o f

fe ns e i s s e nt e nc e d b as e d o n t he a m o unt
o f d r u g s in v o lv e d in th e o ffe n s e . In ca lc u la tin ga d e fe n d a n t’s b a s e o ffe n s e le v e l, 12N o. 08- 10502

United States v. Moore , 927 F.2d825 , 827 (5t h Cir . 1991) (quot ing Un ited St atesv . 13 Mi r , 9 1 9F .2 d 9 4 0 , 9 4 3( 5 thC ir

. 1 9 9 0)) (inte rn al qu otation mar ks om itte d) ; see id

. (“T o b e consi dered as re lev antcon duct, drug rel ated offen ses ne ed not r esult in the d efen dant’s co nviction .”); United States v. Ed wards , 91 1 F .2d 1 031 , 10 33 (5thC ir. 1 990) (“The district court can consi der a b road ran geof conduct in assessing a defendant’s offe nse level und er the guideline s an d is not limit ed sol elyto the conduct fo r which the defen d ant is being se nte n ce d. ”)

.

Wa ll , 18 0 F .3d at 6 44-4 5. 14 Bry ant , 99 1 F .2d at 1 77. 15 U .S .S .G. § 1 B 1 .3 , cm t. n .9 (A ). 16 9 t he di s t r i c t c o ur tm ayc o ns i de r o t he r o f fe ns e s i n ad di t i o n t o t he a c t s und e r l yi ng th e of fen se of con victi on , a s l on g a s th ose off en ses con sti tu te “rel ev a n t con d u ct”
as def i ned i n t he G ui del i nes . A s w e have r ec ogni ze d, “ t he bas e of fens e l eve lc an ref l ectqu an t i t i es of

drug s not speci f

i ed in t h e coun t of

convi ct i on i f

t h ey w ere pa r to f t he s am e c o ur s e o f

c o nduc t o rpa r t o f

a com m on sche m e o r pl an as t he
coun t of convi ct i on . ” T h e defen da n t need not hav e been convi ct ed of, or even 13 cha rged w i t h , t h e ot h er of fen ses f or t h em t o be consi dered rel evan t condu ctf or sentenci n g pu rposes. In d rug d i st ribu t i on cases , w e ha ve “ broad l y defi n ed 14
w h a t c o n s t it u t e s th e ‘s a m e c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t ’ o r ‘c o m m o n s c h e m e o r p la n .’” 15 W i t h t hi s i n m i nd, w e no w a ddr e s s w he t he r Rhi ne ’ s al l e ge d pa r t i c i pa t i o n i n t he F ish B o w l dr u g -tra ffi c k in g r in ga n d h is o ffen se of co n v iction a re p a rt o f ( 1 ) a
com m on sch em e or p l a n , or (2) th e sa m e cou rse o f con d u ct. 1. C om m on Schem e or P l an A separate, un adj u di ca te d o f fen se m ay be p art of a com m on sc h em e or pl an
— a n d t h u s rel e va nt c o nduc t — i f i t i s “ s ubs t ant i al l y c o nne c t e d t o [ t he of fen se of convi ct i on ] by at l east on e com m on fact or, such a s c om m on vi ct i m s, c om m on ac c om pl i c es , c om m on purpos e, ors i m i l ar m o dus o pe r andi

. ” Seve r al

16 courts ha ve concl u ded t h at, f or t w o of

fen ses t o be consi dered p art of a com m on sch em e or p l a n , the acts “m u st be con n ected toge th er b y co m m on pa rti ci p a n tsN o. 08- 10502

SeeU n ited St atesv . Hil l , 7 9F .3 d 1 4 7 7 , 1 4 8 2 ( 6 thC ir

. 1 9 9 6) (c olle ctin gc a se s) 17 (inte rn al qu ot ationmark s o mitt ed).

Wa ll , 18 0 F .3d at 6 45. 18 See United States v. Cu lverho use , 5 0 7 F .3 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 5( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 7) (h ol din gth at two 19 offen ses w ere not partof a common scheme or p lanwhenth e o ffenses coul d only“b e co nne cted b y. . . th e mo stgen er al of p u rp os es , inth at th eyb othi nvolv edme th a mp h et a mi n e”).

10 o r a n o ve r al ls c he m e . ” I n Un ited S ta tes v. W a ll , w e rul ed that t w o of fen ses 17
w ere not pa rtof

a com m on sc h em e or pl an becau se ( 1) t h e of fen ses di d n ot share anyc o m m o n a c c o m pl i c e s , ( 2) t he r e w as no c o m m o n m o dus o pe r andi , a s t he earl i er of

fen se i n vol ved a sm al lam ou n t of m arij u an a an d th e l aterof fen se i nvo l ve d l ar ge qua nt i t i e s o f m ar ij uana c o nc e al e d i n pi c k- up t r uc ks , a nd ( 3) t he
on l y com m on pu rpose b e tw e e n t h e of fen ses w as “ i m porti n g m arij u an a f or di st ribu t i on i n t h e U n i t ed Stat es, ” w h i ch w as, by i t sel f, i n suff i ci en t t o est abli sh
a c o m m o n s c he m e o r pl an. 18 W e c o nc l ude t hatRhi ne ’ s pa r t i c i pa t i o n i n t he Fi s h Bowl dr ug- t r af f i c ki ng
r i n ga n d h i s o f

fe n s e o f c o n v i c t i o n c a n n o t b e c o n s i d e r e d p a r t o f a c o mmo n s c h e me or pl an . T h ere i s n o evi den ce t h at M oore, R h i n e’ s onl y accom pl i ce i n hi s of fen se o f c o n v ic tio n , p la y e d a n y r o le in t h e F is h B o w l d r u g -tr a ffic k in gr in g . N e ith e r is t h ere evi de nc e t hata ny Fi s h Bowl pa r t i c i pa nt w as i nvo l ve d i n t he i ns t ant i nc i de nt
. Fur t he r , t he o f fe ns e s do no t s har e a c o m m o n m o dus o pe r andi : I n t he Fi s h Bowl offen se, Rhi ne i s a l l e ge d t o ha ve b e e n a l ar ge - s c al e s upp l i e r t o m i dle v e l d ea l ers; b y con trast, i n th e of fen se of con victi on , h e attem p ted to s e ll a
sm al lquant i t y o f

c r ac k c oc ai ne to an i ndi vi dual buyerf orf i ve dol l ar s. Fi nal l y, th e o n ly co m m o n p u r p o s e lin k in gth e tw o o ffe n s e s is R h in e ’ s m o tiv a tio n to p r o fit f rom t h e di st ribu t i on of cr ack cocai n e, w h i ch — l i ke t h e m arij u an a i m portat i on i n W a ll— is b y itse lf in su ffi cie n t to co n n e ct th e offe n se s a s s e p a ra te p a rts o f a
com m on sc h em e or p lan. W e m u stt h eref ore proc eed to determ i n e w h et h er 19N o. 08- 10502

U .S .S .G. § 1 B 1 .3 , cm t. n .9 (B). 20 Id

. 21 Id

. 22 See Cu lverho use , 50 7 F .3d at 8 96. 23 Moore , 9 2 7F .2 d at 8 2 8 ; seeU nitedStates v. Santia

go , 90 6 F .2d 8 67, 872 -73 (2d C ir. 24 1 9 9 0) (s tatin gth at th er e aren o “inh er ent li mitation s onth e tr a n sactio n s t o b e co n si de re d”). 11 R h in e ’ s a lle g e d p a r tic ip a tio n i n the F i sh B ow ldr u g-traffic k in grin gm a y p r o p e r ly be c o ns i de r e d p ar t o f t he s am e c o ur s e o f

c o nduc t a s hi s o f

fe ns e o f c o nvi c t i o n. 2. Sa m e C ou rs e of C on du ct T h e G u id e li n e s s t a te th a t “[o]ffen se s th a t d o n o t q u a li fya s p a rt o f a
com m on sc h em e or pl an m ay non et h el ess qu al i f y as part of

t h e sam e course of
c o nduc t i f t he y ar e s uf f i c i e nt l y c o nne c t e d o r r e l at e d t o [ t he o f fe ns e o f c o nvi c t i o n]
as t o w arran t t h e concl u si on t h at t h ey are pa rt of a si n gl e epi sode, sp re e , or on goi n g seri es of

of fen ses. ” Fa ct ors t o consi der i n m ak i n g t h i s det erm i n ati on

20 i nc l ude “ t he de gr e e o f s i m i l ar i t y o f

t h e o f fe ns e s , t he r e gul ar i t y ( r e pe t i t i o ns ) o f t he offen ses , an d the ti m e in te r va lbe tw ee n the off en ses . ” Aw ea k sh ow i n g a s to

21
an y on e of these fact ors w i l ln ot p recl u de a f i n di n g of

rel evan t condu ct ; rat h er,

“ [ w ] h en on e of the abov e fact ors i s absent, a st ronger presen ce of at l east on e of th e o th e r fa c to r s is re q u ir e d .” 22

a . T e m p o ra l P ro x im ity To de t e r m i ne w he t he r t e m po r alpr oxi m i t y i s pr e s e nt , w e b e gi n wi t h t he i n t erval betw een t h e defen da n t ’ s p u rport ed rel evan t con du cta n d the of fen se of convic t i on . B ecau se t h ere i s “ n o separate s t atute of li m i t ati on s bey on d w h i ch 23
r e le v a n t c o n d u c t s u d d e n ly b e c o m e s irr e le v a n t,” a d e fe n d a n t’s p r io r co n d u c t w ill
n o t n e c e s s a r i l y b e “p la c e d o ff lim its s im p ly b e c a u s e o f a la p s e o f tim e .” 24 N e ve r t he l e s s , “ va r i o us c o ur t s ha ve fo und t hata per i o d of se pa r at i o n o f

o ve r o neN o. 08- 10502

Wa ll , 1 8 0F .3 d at 6 4 6 ; se e, e .g., Hi ll , 79F .3d at 1484(6th Cir. 19 96) (“[W]e find that 25 te mp or al proxim ityi s e xtr em elywe ak inth at ninet ee nmo nth s i s ane xce edin glyl on gl a ps e b etwe eno ff

en se s.”); Un ited

St atesv . Maxw el l , 34 F.3 d 100 6, 101 1 (11th Cir. 1 994) (conclu ding th at twoo ff

en se s o cc u rrin gmo reth a nayear a partwe re“te mp or allyr em ot e”). See United States v. Boo ker , 3 3 4F .3 d 4 0 6 , 4 1 4( 5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 3 ). Compare Cu lverho use , 26 507F .3d at 8 96 (concludingth at temporal proxim it y w as l ackin g when offen ses were se parate d b yal mo stt hreeyears), and Un ited States v. Miller , 17 9 F .3d 9 61, 966(5th Cir. 1 9 9 9) (h ol din gth at of

fe n se s se parate d by21 month s wer e te mp or allyr em ot e) , with Bry ant , 991 F .2d at 1 77 (concluding that temporal proximity of roughly two months supported district co u rt’sf

in din go f re lev a nt co n du ct), and Moore , 92 7 F .2d at 8 26, 828(ho ldin g that amphe tamin es sei zed five months priorto offense of convictioncould b e co nside red relevant co n du ct). Bu t see United States v. Rob ins , 978F .2d 8 81, 890(5th Cir. 1 992 ) (conclu ding th at “ahiatu s of a pp ro xim ate lyo n e a n d on e h alf years” di d n ot re n de r prio r “s im il ar tr a n sactio n s” irre lev a nt fo r se nte n cin gp u rp os es). 17 9 F .3d at 9 66, 967n .10. 27As state d abov e, the Fish Bowl investigatio n cul minated in a l arge-scal e drugraid 28 on May17 , 20 06, butth e informant on whose statement th e probationofficer reli ed indic ated that h e h ad sto pped c ookin g c r ac kcoc ain e fo r Rhin e b y approximate lyJanuary 200 6. There for e, d epe ndin g on which so urc e one cr edi ts , Rhine’ s par tic ipat ion in the Fis h Bowl drugtrafficking

ringen ded so me ti me b etweenJanuary and May20 06, mean in g t hatatle ast 1 7 month s — and as many as 22 month s — separate Rhine ’s earlier conduct fro m hi s offen se of convicti on.

See Moore , 92 7 F .2d at 828 (findingth at inte rve nin g arre st for marij uan a po ssession 29 helped c onn ect defen dant’s earlie r dru g activity to his o ffense o f c onvicti on such that th e 12 yearnegat ed o r w ei ghed aga i nst[ a f i ndi ng of

] t em por al pro xi m i t y. ” W e have 25 “g e n e r a lly u s e d a y e a r a s t h e b e n c h m a r k fo r d e te r m in in gte m p o r a l p r o x im ity .” 26 Fore xa m pl e , i n Un i t ed Stat es v. Mi l l er , w e co ncl uded thatof fens es s epar at ed by 21 m ont hs w er e “ r el at i vel y re m ot e i n t i m e” an d h el d that“ ot her fac t or s m ustbe
a u th o r ita tiv e ly p r e s e n t in o r d e r to o v e r c o m e th is lo n gg a p .” 27 H ere, at l east 17 m on t h s separate an y pa rt i ci pa t i on by R h i n e i n t h e F i sh B ow ldrug

- t raf

f i cki n g ri n g f

rom hi s of

fen se of

con vi ct i on . A l t h ou gh not 28 d is p o s itiv e , a h ia tu s th is la r g e s u g g e s ts th a t t e m p o r a l p r o x im ity is la c k in g . W e al s o f i nd c o unt e r - i ndi c at i ve t he l ac k o f e vi de nc e t hatRhi ne e nga ge d i n a ny i n t ervening cri m i n al act i vi t y, t h e presence of w h i ch m i gh t l i n k h i s ea rl i er c o n d u c t t o t h e o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n . T h e g o v e r n m e n t u r g e s u s t o o v e r lo o k th is 29N o. 08- 10502

earlie r dru gactivityc ouldb e co n si de re d re lev a nt co n du ct).

See Cu lverho use , 507F .3d at 8 96 (“Howeve r, afailur e in temporal proximitydoe s no t, 30 b yits elf, p rev ent af

in din go f re lev a nt co n du ct .”). See United States v. Cedano-Rojas , 9 9 9F .2 d 1 1 7 5 , 1 1 8 0( 7 thC ir

. 1 9 9 3 ). 31 Id

. 32 13 s h o r tc o m in g , in s is tin gth a t t h e a p p a r e n t la c k o f in te r v e n in gcr im in a l a c tiv ity is sol el y t h e resul t of t h e i n f orm an t s’ i m pri sonm en t on federal drug convi ct i on s — and no t Rhi ne ’ s v o l u n t ari l y ab s t e nt i o n f r o m c r i m i nala c t i vi t y. Thi s a r gum e nt i s unp er suas i ve, as i t s ugges t s t hat R hi ne has t he burde n of pr ovi ng t he negat i ve fact t h at he d i dnot e n g a g e in a n y in te r v e n in gcr im in a l a c tiv ity , w h e n in fa c t it i s i n cum ben t on t h e g overnm en t to sh ow the posi t i ve fact of R h i n e’ s c on t i n u ed d r u gd is tr ib u tio n a c tiv itie s . W e c o nc l ude t hat t e m po r al pr o xi m i t y i s l ac ki ng, a ddi ng, ho w e ve r , t hato ur con cl u sion do es n ot n ece ssa r i l y p reclu d e a f i n d i n g o f relev a n t con d u ct. 30 O ffe n s e s s e p a r a te d b y 1 7 m o n th s — o r e v e n lo n g e r p e r io d s o f tim e — m ig h t s till be consi dered p art of t h e sam e course o f c o n du cti f sup ported by a st ronger p rese n ce of at l ea st on e of th e oth er factors. In p a rti cu l a r, w e rec og n i ze tha t a l ap se of t i m e betw een p ri or c on du ctan d the of fen se of convi ct i on does not
n e c e s s a r i l y i n d i c a t e t h a t a d e fe n d a n t a b a n d o n e d a c o u r s e o f c o n d u c t
. I n s o me ca se s , a la p s e of ti m e m i gh t m ere l y m ea n tha t t h e d efen d a n t ha d to pu t a
ve nt ur e “ o n ho l d. ” Fo r e xa m pl e , i n Uni t e d St at e s v . Ce dano

- R o j as , the S ev en th 31 C i rcui t concl u ded t h at a defen da n t ’ s drug transacti on t h at oc curred t w o years pri or t o h i s of

fen se of convi ct i on w as not t oo t em poral l y rem ot e t o be consi dered
r e l e va nt co nduc t
. The d e fe nda nt i n Ceda no - R o j as h a d c o m p le te d a la r g e -s c a le 32 dru g t ran sact i on short l y bef ore l osi n g h i s s u p pl i er, af t er w h i ch h e faced di f f i cul t i es obtai n i n g cocai n e, resul t i n g i n a t w o- year gap betw e e n h is earl i erN o. 08- 10502

Id

. at11 77-7 8. 33 Id

. at11 80. 34 Id

. at11 80-8 1. 35 Id

. 36 14 of fen se and t h e of

fen se of

convi ct i on . D escr i bi n g t h e defen da n t ’ s earl i er 33
o ffe n s e a s “r e la tiv e ly s ta le ,” th e S e v e n th C ir c u it w a r n e d th a t cou rts m u st re m a in

“ c a u t i o u s a n d e x a c t i n g i n p e r mi t t i n gs u c h

. . . d e a l i n g s t o b e i n c l u d e d i n t h e s a me cou rse o f c on d u ct as th e offen se o f con victi on . N ev erth eless, the S ev en th 34 C i rcu i t aff

i rm ed the distri ct cou rt’ s f i n d i n g o f relev a n t con d u ct, ba sing i ts h oldin g larg ely on the ov erw h elm i n g ev i d en ce i n s u p p ort of sim i l a ri ty, a s bo th of fen ses i n vol ved ( 1) l arge am ou n t s of coc ai n e, ( 2) t h e sam e source and sup pl i er, a n d (3) a n e a rly ide n tica l u se of “m u les ” to d istr ib u te th e d ru g s. T h u s, e v e n if, 35
argue ndo , w e w e re to a d o p t th e re a so n in gof Ceda no - R o j as a nd f

i nd t hatRhi ne h a d b e e n f

o r c e d t o p u t h i s v e n t u r e “ o n h o l d ” f o l l o wi n gt h e F i s h B o wla r r e s t s , we
w ou l d sti l ln ee d to de term i n e w h eth er a stron ge r p rese n ce of eith e r si m i l a ri ty
or r egu l ari t y com pen sates for t h e absen ce of t em poral proxi m i t y. Th eref ore, 36
w e m u stnow deter m i n e w h et h er t h ere i s s u f f i ci en t e vi den ce of

si m i l ari t y or regulari t y t o sup port a f i n di n g t h at R h i n e’ s earl i e r co n du ctan d h i s of fen se of convic t i on w ere pa rt of t h e sam e course of cond u ct , desp i t e th e a t t en u ati on betw een t h e end of t h e F i sh B ow lri n g’ s op e ra t i on s and R h i n e’ s c ri m e of
c o nvi c t i o n. b . S im il a rity To det er m i ne w het her a defendant ’ s ear l i erc onducti s suf f i c i ent l y s i m i l ar t o t h e of fen se of convi ct i on , w e i n qu i re w h et h er“ t he r e are di st i n ct i ve si m i l ari t i es betw een t h e of

fen se of convic t i on an d t h e rem ot e condu ctt h at s i gn al t h at t h ey ar e par t of

a c our se of

c onductr at her t han i so l at ed, unre l at ed e vent s t hatN o. 08- 10502

Cu lverho use , 5 0 7F .3 d at 8 9 6(inte rn al qu ot ationmark s an d citationo mitt ed). 37 SeeW al l , 180 F.3dat646-47 (q uoti ng United States v. Mullins , 971 F.2 d 113 8, 1 145 38 (4 thC ir

. 1 9 9 2 ))

.

Id

. at64 6. 39 15 h ap pen onl y t o b e si m i l ar in k i n d. ” A s w e h ave previ ou sl y cau t i on ed, how ever, 37 courts m u stnot c on du ctt h i s ana l ysi s atsu ch a l evelof gen eral i t y as t o render i t m e ani ngl e s s . Fo r e xa m pl e , i n W a ll , w e con cl u ded tha t tw o of fen ses w ere not 38
s uf f i c i e nt l y s i m i l arb e c aus e ( 1) t he r e w as no e vi de nc e t hatt he m ar ij uana i nvo l ve d i n e ac h o f t he o f fe ns e s s har e d a c o m m o n s o ur c e , s upp l i e r o r de s t i nat i o n, ( 2) t her e w er e no com m on acc om pl i c es , an d ( 3) one of t he o f fens es i nvol ved “ l ar ge l o ad s of m ar ij uana se c r e t e d i n t he w he e l s a nd g as t ank [ s ] o f t w o pi c k- up t r uc ks dri ven acros s t h e border, ” w h ereas t h e ot h er of fen se i n vol ved onl y “ a m u ch
s m a lle r . . . lo a d h id d e n [s o m e w h e r e ] in [th e d e fe n d a n t’s ca r ].” 39 L i kew i se, t h ere are severalm ater i al di f ferences betw een R h i n e’ s al l eged pa r t i c i pa t i o n i n t he Fi s h Bowl dr ug- t r af f i c ki ng r i ng and hi s o f fe ns e o f c o nvi c t i o n. R h i n e’ s i n st an t of

fen se i n vol ved possessi on of a very sm al l qu an t i t y ( 1. 89 gram s) of c r ac k c oc ai n e w i t h i nt ent t o s el ls om e l es se r por t i on o f i t t o a n i ndi vi dual buy e r f o r f i ve do l l ars; the sa l e t o o k p l ac e i n a v e hi c l e ; a nd Buc hana n, t he i ndi vi d u a lp u r c h a s e rf o rh e rp e r s o n a lc o n s um pt i o n, ha d j us t l e ar ne d a bo ut Rhi ne f rom som e un n am ed sou rce at a s ervi ce s t ati on . I n c o n t rast , R h i n e’ s al l eged p a r tic ip a tio n in th e F is h B o w l d r u g -tr a ffic k in grin gw a s s a id to h a v e in v o lv ed h is
ac t i ng as a l ar ge- sc al e m anufac t ure r , di st r i but or , and s uppl i erof ki l ogr am qu an t i t i es of

cr ack cocai n e t o nu m erous m i d-l eveldealer s. T h ere are n ot even an y a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t Rh i n e s o l d t o i n d i v i d u a lu s e r s d u r i n gt h e F i s h Bo wld r ug t r af f i c ki ng. N e i t he r i s t he r e any s ugg e s t i o n t hatt he t w o i nc i de nt s i nvo l ve d a ny com m on parti ci pa n t s oraccom pl i ces.N o. 08- 10502

See Cu lverho use , 50 7 F .3d at 8 96 (“Nor is th ere anyevidence thatth e 40 metha mpheta mine in the two offen ses share d a common source , suppli er, de stination , or that th e twoo ff

en se s involv edasi milar mo du s o pe ran di .”); Wa ll , 18 0 F .3d at 6 46 (“Notably , th ere is no evi denceth at the marij uan a that formed the basi s for the 199 6 and 199 7 offenses share d ac om mo nso u rc e, su pp li er , or de stin ation with th e mari j u a n a involv ed in th e 1 9 9 2 o ff en se .”). See Cu lverho use , 50 7 F .3d at 8 96 (“Th e fact that [the una dju dicated offense and the 41 of fe n seo f co nviction] b oth involv edme th a mp h et a mi n e isn ote n ou gh .”); Wa ll , 18 0 F .3d at 6 46- 4 7(“We don otthink that twoo ff en se s c on stitu teasin glec ours e of c on du ctsi mp lyb ec au se th eyb othinvolv e dru gdis trib u tion .”); Miller , 17 9 F .3d at 9 67 (concludingth at similaritywas lackingbe cau se “[t]h e o nlyreal si milaritybe tween the two [offe nses] i s that th eybo th involved atran sactio nf

orth e saleo f co cain e”). M ul lins , 9 7 1 F .2 d at 1 1 4 5 ; se e Hil l , 7 9 F

. 3 d at 1 4 8 4 ( s t ati n g th at , if t wodru g 42 tran sactio ns are se parated by more than oneyear, a r elevantcon duct findinggene rally may n otb e pr em is edo nth e so lesi milarityth at th e tr a n sactio n s involv edth e sa medru g). 16 W e concl u de that si m i l ari t y i s la ck i n g, as t h e di f ferences bet w een t h ese of fen ses are si gn i f

i can t
. T h e qu an t i t i es, m et h ods of di st ribu t i on , parti ci pa n t s, a n d n a tu r e o f th e tr a n s a c tio n s — a s w e ll a s th e d e fe n d a n t’s ro le in th e m — a ll
va r y s ubs t an t i al l y. Fur t he r , t he r e i s no e vi de nc e t hatt he c o c ai ne f o r m i ng t he basi s f or R h i n e’ s of

fen se of convi ct i on shared a c o m m on source, sup pl i er, or de s t i nat i o n w i t h t he c o c ai ne i nvo l ve d i n t he Fi s h Bowl a c t i vi t i e s . Al t ho ugh t he 40
o f fe n s e s b o t h i n v o l v e t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c r a c k c o c a i n e , t h e me r e fa c t t h a t t wo sep a ra te off

en ses i n vo l ve th e s a m e ty p e of dru g is gen era l l y n ot su ff i ci en t t o
s u p p o r t a fin d in g o f s im ila r ity

. T o h o ld th a t t h e s e o ffe n s e s a r e s im ila r w o u ld 41 b e, i n the w ord s of t h e F ou rth C i rcu i t, t o de sc r i be t he def

endant ’ s c onduct at suc h a l eve lof ge ner al i t y as t o evi scer ate the evaluati on of w h et h er u n cha rged act i vi t y i s p art of t h e sam e course of

condu ctor com m on sc h em e or pl an as t h e of fen se of convi ct i on . W i t h a b rush st roke t h at broad , al m ostan y u n cha rged crim i n a lactivi ty ca n be pa i n ted as sim i l a r i n at l ea st on e res p ect to th e ch a rg ed cri m i n a lcon d u ct. 42N o. 08- 10502

See Cu lverho use , 50 7 F .3d at 8 96 ( “Wh il e we qu estionwhether a showing of 43 regularityalonecould support a findin g of re levantcon duct whencoupledw ith anabsenceof temporal proximityan d simil arity, we assu me argu endoth at a showing of suff icient re gularity co u ldp rovid e th e n ec es sarysupp ort. ”)

.

SeeW al l , 18 0 F .3d at 6 46, n.6. 445 0 7F .3 d at 8 9 7
. 45 Id

. at89 6-97
. 46 Id

. at89 7. 47 17 H aving sati sf

i ed ou rselv e s th a t b o th tem p o ra l pr o x im itya n d sim il a ri t y are l acking, w e m u st n ow determ i n e w h et h er t h ere i s a suff i ci en t l y st rong p resence of regu l a ri ty to su p p ort a fi n d i n g o f relev a n t con d u ct. 43

c . R e g u lar ity T o d e te rm i n e w h et h er “ regulari t y” i s present, w e i n qu i re w h et h er t h ere i s evi den ce of

a regul ar, i

. e. , repeated, patt ern of si m i l ar u n l aw f

u lcondu ct di r e c t l y l i nki ng t he pur po r t e d r e l e va nt c o nduc t and t he o f fe ns e o f c o nvi c t i o n. 44 F o r e x a m p le , in C u l verhou se , w e he l d t hat t w o di ss i m i l ar of fens es s epar at ed by al m o s t t hr e e y e ar s l ac ke d r e gul ar i t y be c aus e t he r e w as no e vi de nc e o f unl awf ul cond u ctocc u rri n g “ betw een t h e [ defenda n t ’ s] pri or t ran sact i on . . . an d [ h i s] l ater
m anufac t ur i ng. ” I n C u l verhou se , the go ve rn m en t ha d i n sist ed tha t regu l a ri ty 45
w as pr e s e nt b e c aus e t he defen da n t h ad b e e n i nvo l ve d i n s e ve r alpr i o r dr ug t r an sact i ons , a l lo f

w hi c h ha d t ak e n pl ac e b e f o r e t he o f

fe ns e t he g o ve r nm e nt
s o ugh t t o c har ac t e ri ze a s r e l e va nt c o nduc t
. But , a s w e e xp l ai ne d, “ [ t ] he 46
s e nt e n ci n g j u dg e c o ul d no t ha ve r e l i e d o n t hi s e vi de nc e t o e s t ab l i s h t he reg u l a ri ty req u i red by § 1B 1
. 3 , ” prim a ri l y b eca u se th e tem p ora l l y re m ote of fen ses h ad not oc curred betw een t h e earl i er c on du ctan d the of fen se of convic t i on . W e th en concl u ded t h at, even i f w e w ere t o consi der t h e earl i er 47 of fen ses, our case l aw est abli she d th a t “f i ve of fen ses over t h e course of f i f t een years, separated as t h ey are by t i m e an d c i rcum st an ces, can n ot be co n sid e redN o. 08- 10502

Id

. (inte rn al qu ot ationmark s an d citationo mitt ed). 48U .S .S .G. § 1 B 1 .3 , cm t. n .9 (B). 49 18 rep eti ti ou s or reg u l a r con d u ct t o a de gr ee si gn i fi c a n t en ou gh to con sti tu te
s u ffic ie n t c o n n e c tio n u n d e r th e [G ]u id e lin e s .” 48 A f t err evi ew i ng t he i nst ant r ec or d, w e c onc l ude t hat r egul ar i t y i s l ac ki ng, a s th ere i s n o ev i d en ce th a t R h i n e en ga ge d i n an y in terv en i n g crim i n a lactivi ty

— m uc h l e s s dr ug di s t r i but i o n — b e t w e e n t he Fi s h Bowl dr ug- t r af f i c ki ng r i ng and hi s o f

fe ns e o f c o nvi c t i o n. W i t ho ut e ve n a s c i nt i l l a o f e vi de nc e t hatRhi ne sol d d rugs i n t h e i n t eri m , t h e govern m en t nev ert h el ess seeks t o shi f t t h e bu rden t o R h i n e, i n si st i n g t h at he m u stprove t h e n egati ve fact t h at he d i dnot engag e i n a seri es of

s i m i l ardr ug t r ans ac t i o ns . But w e de c l i ne t o a do ptt he g o v e r n m e n t ’s a s s e r t io n th a t r e g u la r it y is p r e s e n t m e r e ly b e c a u s e o f R h in e ’s i nab i l i t y t o di s pr o ve an as s e r t i o n t hatal r e ad y f i nds no s upp o r t i n t he r e c o r d, a nd
c onc l ude i nst ead t hat t her e i s no e vi denc e o f i nt er veni ng orr epe t i t i ous c r i m i nal beh aviort h at m i gh t l i n k the tw o i n ci den t s t ogether. T h e governm en t al so i n si st s t h at R h ine’ s t h ree pri or c on vi ct i on s f or
m ar ij uana pos se ss i on and c oc ai ne di st r i but i on s upporta f i ndi ng of

r egul ar i t y, even t h ou gh t h e convi ct i on s allt ook p l ace w el lbef ore R h i n e’ s al l eged pa rt i ci pa t i on i n t h e F i sh B ow l dru g- t raf f i cki n g ri n g. R h i n e coun t ers t h at, un der
o ur pr e c e de nt , a di st ri c t c o ur t m ayno t b as e a f i ndi ng o f

r e gul ar i t y o n a de fe nda nt ’ s pr i o r c o nvi c t i o ns o r a c t i vi t y t hatdi d no t t ak e pl ac e b e t w e e n t he p u r p o r te d re le v a n t c o n d u c t a n d th e o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n . It b ea rs em p h a sizi n g t h a t th e ove ra l l p u rp ose of th i s an a l ys i s i s si m p l y to det er m i ne w het her t he of fens e at i ss ue i s par t of t he “ sa m e c our se of c onduct ” as th e o ffe n s e o f c o n v ic tio n , o r , m o r e s p e c ific a lly , w h e th e r th e tw o a r e “s u ffic ie n tly
co n n e cte d o r re la te d

. . . a s to w a rr a n t th e co n clu sio n th a t th e y a re p a rt o f a
s i ngl e e pi s o de , s pr e e , o r o ngo i ng s e r i e s o f of fe ns e s . ” C o ns e que nt l y, w e de c l i ne

49N o. 08- 10502

See United States v. Joh nson , 44 5 F. 3d793, 798(5th Cir. 2 006) (explainin g that, 50 fol low ing United States v. Boo ker , 54 3 U .S. 22 0 (2 005), “[t]h e sentencing j udge i s entitle d to 19 t o ad o pt Rhi ne ’ s s ugg e s t i o n t hat a di s t r i c t c o ur t m ay ne ve r c o ns i der a d e fe n d a n t’s p r io r c o n v ic tio n s o r a c tiv itie s s im p ly b e c a u s e t h e y d id n o t o c c u r in t h e i n t ervalbetw een t h e pu rport e d r e levan t condu ctan d the of fen se of
c o nvi c t i o n. Rhi ne ’ s c o nt e nt i o n m i s s t at e s o ur ho l di ng i n C u l verhou se , i n w h i ch
w e c onc l uded notonl y t hat t he def endant ’ s se ver alpr i ortra n sact i ons had pr e c e de d hi s pur po r t e d r e l e va nt c o nduc t , t hus re nde r i ng t he i r per s uas i ve v al ue qu est ion a b l e, bu t al so t h at, even on the m eri t s, t h ose act i vi t i es di d n ot dem ons t r at e s uf

f i ci en t r egul ar i t y t o o ver c om e t he abs enc e o f bo t h t em por al proxi m i t y an d si m i l ari t y. I n deed , t h ere m ay be the rare c ase i n w h ich a pri or c o nvi c t i o n o r pr i o r ac t i vi t y i nf o r m s t hi s ana l ys i s by e s t ab l i s hi ng a di rect l i n k, i

. e. , a patt ern of

regul ari t y or r epeti t i on , betw een t h e pu rport ed rel evan t condu ct
an d the of

fen se of convi ct i on ( e. g. , i f

a speci f

i c “ course of cond u ct ” bega n bef ore t he “ r e l e va nt c o nduc t ” and c o nt i nue d t hr o ugh t o t he o f fe ns e o f c o nvi c t i o n)

. But t h i s, l i ke C u l verhou se , i s n ot such a case. W e are sati sf i ed t h at R h i n e’ s ol d, preF i sh B ow lcon victi on s d o n ot esta b lis h a d i rect l i n k or p a ttern of reg u l a ri ty b e tw e e n th e tw o d is p a ra te an d tem p ora l l y re m o te in c id e n ts a t is s u e , vi z. , R h in e ’s al l ege d 2006 par t i c i pat i on i n a l ar ge- sc al e dr ug t r af f i c ki ng r i ng and hi s 2007
c o n v ic tio n fo r a re la tiv e ly s m a ll, st r e e t-le v e l d r u gd e a l. I n sum , R hi ne’ s al l ege d p ar t i c i pat i on i n t he Fi sh Bow lac t i vi t i es c annot be
c ons i der ed par t of t he sa m e c our se of c onduct as hi s i nst ant of f ens e, as t em por al pro xi m i t y, s i m i l ar i t y, and r egul ar i t y ar e a l ll ac ki ng. C. Si xt h Am e ndm e nt H avi ng c onc l uded t hat R hi ne’ s al l ege d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t he Fi s h Bo wl dr ugt raf fic king- ri n g can n ot properl y be consi dered rel evan t condu ct , w e need not ad dr e s s t he m e r i t s o f hi s Si xt h A m e ndm e nt c l ai m . W e no t e , ho w e ve r , t hatt he cl a i m i s f

ore cl ose d by ou r p rece d en t. 50N o. 08- 10502

fi n d b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f th e evi d e n c e all th e f a c t s r e l ev a nt t o th e d e t e r m i n a ti ono f a gu id elin e se nte n cin gr a n ge”); Un ited Statesv. A lo nzo , 4 3 5 F .3 d 5 5 1 , 5 5 3 (5 thC ir

. 2 0 0 6) (s a me). 20 I I I . C ONC L US I ON F o r th e fo r e g o in gre a s o n s , w e co n c lu d e th a t t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t c le a r ly
er r ed byt r eat i ng R hi ne’ s al l ege d par t i c i pat i on i n t he Fi sh Bow ldr ugt raf f i cki n g ri n g as rel evan t condu ctf or purp oses of

sentenci n g on hi s of fen se o f c o nvi c t i o n. Rhi ne ’ s a c t i vi t y i n t he Fi s h Bowl o pe r at i o ns a nd t he i ns t ant offen se a re n ot p a rt of a co m m on sch em e or p l a n , as th e tw o d i sp a ra te i n ci den t s l ack com m on accom pl i ces, com m on vi ct i m s, a com m on pu rpose, or a c o m m o n m o dus o

pe r andi

. N ei t her c an t he t w o di spar at e i nci dent s be
c ons i der ed par t of

t he s am e c our se of

c onduct , as t em por alpr oxi m i t y, s im il a r it y , a n d r e g u la r it y a r e a ll la c k in g . W e th e r e fo r e VA C A T E R h in e ’s
s e nt e nc e a nd REM AN D f o r r e - s e nt e nc i ng i n c o nf o r m i t y w i t h t hi s o pi ni o n.