UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-4020

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

VANDARIAN CANTY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:20-cr-00160-D-1)

Submitted: August 23, 2022 Decided: August 25, 2022

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HEYTENS, Circuit Judge, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Richard Croutharmel, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. David A. 

Bragdon, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4020 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Vandarian Canty pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924, and possessing with intent to distribute a quantity of 

cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(C). The district court sentenced 

Canty to 87 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), conceding that there are no meritorious issues for 

appeal but questioning whether the district court erred in counting a June 2019 traffic stop 

as relevant conduct.*

 See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.3(a)(2) (2018). 

Although notified of his right to do so, Canty has not filed a pro se supplemental brief. We 

affirm the district court’s judgment.

Because the district “court’s application of U.S.S.G. § 1B.13 depended on an 

evaluation and weighing of the factual details, . . . we review the court’s decision for clear 

error.” United States v. McVey, 752 F.3d 606, 610 (4th Cir. 2014). Here, relevant conduct 

includes “all acts and omissions . . . that were part of the same course of conduct or common 

scheme or plan as the offense of conviction.” USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2). “[O]ffenses may 

qualify as the same course of conduct if they are sufficiently connected or related to each 

other as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing 

series of offenses.” United States v. McDonald, 28 F.4th 553, 563-64 (4th Cir. 2022) 

(internal quotation marks omitted). In other words, “the same-course-of-conduct standard 

* Counsel correctly recognizes that this issue affects both the total offense level and 

Canty’s criminal history score.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4020 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 2 of 4
3

requires only that the defendant be engaged in an identifiable pattern of certain criminal 

activity.” Id. at 564 (cleaned up). “Relevant factors include the degree of similarity of the 

offenses, the regularity (repetitions) of the offenses, and the time interval between the 

offenses.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). But “when one of the above factors is 

absent, a stronger presence of at least one of the other factors is required.” Id. (cleaned 

up).

We conclude that the district court did not clearly err. Canty’s charges arose from 

firearms and crack cocaine recovered after three encounters with law enforcement between 

March and November 2020. The district court included as relevant conduct a firearm that 

was recovered during a traffic stop that occurred in June 2019. All four encounters were 

substantially similar—Canty possessed a firearm when he was prohibited from doing so. 

Although there was a nine-month interval between the June 2019 and March 2020 

incidents, we have found an eight-month gap was not so large as to preclude a finding of 

relevant conduct for a felon-in-possession offense. Id. at 565-66 & n.8.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious issues for review. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment. 

This court requires that counsel inform Canty, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Canty requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on Canty.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4020 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 3 of 4
4

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-4020 Doc: 19 Filed: 08/25/2022 Pg: 4 of 4