“Same-Course-of-Conduct” Expanded: Repeated Felon-in-Possession Incidents Within a Brief Interval Constitute Relevant Conduct After an Unconditional Guilty Plea – Commentary on United States v. Troy Wheatley

1. Introduction

United States v. Troy Wheatley, No. 23-4558 (4th Cir. July 7 2025) is an unpublished Fourth Circuit opinion that nonetheless clarifies two recurring federal-criminal-practice questions:

Whether a defendant who tenders an unconditional guilty plea may later appeal a district court’s denial of a suppression motion without an evidentiary hearing; and
How temporally separated firearm possessions by a felon are treated as “relevant conduct” under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 when calculating the advisory Guidelines range.

Defendant–Appellant Troy Wilson Wheatley pled guilty to one count of felon-in-possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). His plea was not conditional under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(a)(2). Wheatley nevertheless sought on appeal: (i) review of the district court’s refusal to hold an evidentiary hearing on his suppression motion, and (ii) reversal or reduction of an above-Guidelines 68-month sentence that incorporated separate firearm incidents as “relevant conduct” and imposed a two-level enhancement for possessing three to seven firearms.

2. Summary of the Judgment

Suppression-hearing claim waived. By pleading guilty unconditionally, Wheatley waived all non-jurisdictional pre-plea defects, including the denial of an evidentiary hearing on his suppression motion (United States v. Lozano applied).
Sentence affirmed. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, the panel upheld procedural and substantive reasonableness:
- Firearm possessions in August 2021 (charged) and December 2021 (uncharged) were part of the “same course of conduct” and therefore counted as relevant conduct (§ 1B1.3(a)(2)).
- The two-level enhancement for involving “three to seven” firearms (U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A)) was proper once the December incidents were folded in.
- The upward variance to 68 months was adequately explained under § 3553(a).
Result: Conviction and sentence AFFIRMED.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

United States v. Lozano, 962 F.3d 773 (4th Cir. 2020) – establishes that an unconditional guilty plea waives non-jurisdictional attacks.
United States v. Fitzgerald, 820 F.3d 107 (4th Cir. 2016) – describes how a conditional plea can preserve suppression issues.
United States v. McDonald, 28 F.4th 553 (4th Cir. 2022) – recent binding authority on when multiple firearm possessions form a single “course of conduct” for § 1B1.3(a)(2).
United States v. Nance, 957 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2020); United States v. Pena, 952 F.3d 503 (4th Cir. 2020) – framework for reasonableness review.
United States v. Provance, 944 F.3d 213 (4th Cir. 2019) and United States v. Friend, 2 F.4th 369 (4th Cir. 2021) – adequacy of sentencing explanations.

These precedents provide the dual scaffolding for the decision: (1) waiver doctrine, and (2) relevant-conduct analysis.

3.2 Legal Reasoning of the Court

Waiver of Suppression Claim
- The panel reiterated the “general rule” that an unconditional guilty plea eliminates all non-jurisdictional claims. Failure to hold a suppression hearing is non-jurisdictional.
- Because Wheatley failed to enter a Rule 11(a)(2) conditional plea preserving the issue, he forfeited it on appeal. The court refused to address the merits.
Relevant Conduct Determination
- Section 1B1.3(a)(2) sweeps in acts “part of the same course of conduct” for grouping offenses under § 3D1.2(d). Firearm-possession offenses are grouping offenses.
- Applying the “similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity” test, the panel found:
  - Similarity: Both incidents involved pistols unlawfully possessed by a felon.
  - Regularity: Two separate instances sufficed given the holdings in McDonald (three instances over nine months adequate).
  - Temporal Proximity: Three-month gap acceptable; no rigid cut-off exists.
- Therefore, December 2021 possessions were properly counted, expanding the firearm total to at least three, triggering § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A).
Procedural Reasonableness
- No error in Guidelines calculation or enhancements.
- District court gave an “individualized assessment” referencing Wheatley’s criminal history, repeated unlawful firearm conduct, and public-safety concerns.
Substantive Reasonableness
- Upward variance from 57-71 month Guidelines? (The court actually imposed 68 months—within upper end when enhancement applied—so technically a variance only if guidelines were different.)
- The panel used the Provance standard: Are § 3553(a) reasons plausible and tied to the record? Concluded yes.

3.3 Impact on Future Litigation

Although unpublished and therefore non-precedential under Fourth Circuit Local Rule 32.1, the decision provides persuasive authority:

Reinforces Need for Conditional Pleas. Defense counsel must secure Rule 11(a)(2) reservations if they intend to litigate suppression on appeal. The opinion will likely be cited (alongside Lozano) in district courts confronting similar waiver arguments.
Broadens “Same-Course-of-Conduct” Scope. By treating two gun-possession events three months apart as a single course of conduct, the court signals that even minimal temporal proximity can suffice when similarity is high. Prosecutors may rely on this reading to support enhancements; defense counsel may need more rigorous factual distinctions to exclude remote incidents.
Practical Sentencing Consequences. Given § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A)’s steep climb at three firearms, including additional possessions as relevant conduct can add offense levels quickly, driving higher custody ranges or variances.
Post-2022 Penalty Amendments Clarified. A footnote explains that the new § 924(a)(8) 15-year maximum does not apply retroactively, limiting confusion for offenses predating June 25 2022.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

Unconditional vs. Conditional Guilty Plea

An unconditional plea is a straight plea of guilt without reserving any issues. A conditional plea (Rule 11(a)(2)) lets a defendant plead guilty but still appeal specified pre-trial rulings (e.g., suppression). Without the reservation, appellate courts treat most complaints as waived.

Relevant Conduct (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3)

Think of “relevant conduct” as the Sentencing Guidelines’ net that captures behavior related to, but not necessarily charged with, the offense. If uncharged acts share a close factual link, they may increase the guideline range.

Same Course of Conduct

Courts ask if multiple acts form a continuous pattern by examining similarity, frequency, and closeness in time. The more alike and repetitive the actions, the longer the permissible time gap can be.

Two-Level Enhancement (§ 2K2.1(b)(1)(A))

If a defendant’s relevant conduct shows possession of 3–7 firearms, the base offense level jumps by two—often equating to years in prison.

Procedural vs. Substantive Reasonableness

Procedural: Did the judge use the right calculation steps and explain the decision?
Substantive: Is the final number fair in light of the law and facts?

5. Conclusion

United States v. Troy Wheatley underscores two practical truths in federal criminal litigation:

Pleading strategy matters. Without a conditional plea, suppression challenges typically die at the courthouse door—and on appeal.
Relevant conduct is elastic. The Fourth Circuit continues to read § 1B1.3 broadly, allowing firearm possessions spaced months apart to aggregate, elevating both Guidelines ranges and statutory exposure.

While unpublished, the opinion complements binding cases like Lozano and McDonald, offering a clear example of waiver doctrine and “same-course-of-conduct” analysis in action. Defense counsel should heed the warning: preserve pre-trial issues properly, and be prepared for the government’s expansive view of relevant conduct—especially in felon-in-possession prosecutions post-Wheatley.