Opinion ID: 172852
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Mr. Caldwell's Production of Three Ounces of Crack was Sufficiently Related to his Conduct of Conviction to Qualify as Relevant Conduct Under the Sentencing Guidelines

Text: The Sentencing Guidelines provide that the court should take into account all activities that form part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction, U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), even if the defendant was never charged with that additional conduct and the jury never found him guilty of it. Offenses may qualify as part of 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. Williams, 292 F.3d 681, 685 (10th Cir. 2002) (quoting U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n. 9(B)); see also United States v. Svacina, 137 F.3d 1179, 1182-83 (10th Cir.1998) (This court has agreed with the Second Circuit['s] distinction between the terms `same course of conduct' and `common scheme or plan.' While a `common scheme or plan' may require some connection between the acts by common participants, purpose, or overall scheme, the analysis of `same course of conduct' focuses on whether there is a pattern of criminal conduct.) (quotation omitted). This court has stated that, when determining whether certain activity qualifies as relevant conduct under the Guidelines, [s]imilarity, regularity, and temporal proximity are the significant elements to be evaluated. United States v. Roederer, 11 F.3d 973, 979-80 (10th Cir.1993); see also Svacina, 137 F.3d at 1182-83; U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n. 9(B) (Factors that are appropriate to the determination of whether offenses are sufficiently connected or related to each other to be considered as part of the same course of conduct include the degree of similarity of the offenses, the regularity (repetitions) of the offenses, and the time interval between the offenses.). Applying those three factors to this case leads us to conclude that Mr. Caldwell's production of three ounces of crack qualified as relevant conduct under the guidelines.