“Total Relevant Conduct” Means Total: United States v. Dehaven Craig and the Limits on Government-Sought Guideline Enhancements

Introduction

On 30 June 2025 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in United States v. Dehaven Craig, No. 22-4230, vacating a 100-month sentence for a felon-in-possession conviction and remanding for resentencing before a different district judge. The panel—Chief Judge Diaz writing for Judges Quattlebaum and Rushing—held that when the parties expressly “stipulate to total relevant conduct” under U.S.S.G. §§ 6B1.4 and 1B1.3, the Government breaches the plea agreement if it later seeks Guideline enhancements based on facts outside that stipulation.

The decision squarely addresses the tension between (1) the Government’s duty of candor to the sentencing court and (2) its contractual obligations in a plea agreement. It establishes a bright-line rule in the Fourth Circuit: the Government may disclose additional facts, but it must not advocate for sentence-increasing consequences that contradict a stipulated “total relevant conduct” clause.

Summary of the Judgment

Charge & Plea: Craig pleaded guilty to one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm after a felony conviction, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); the Government dropped two drug counts.
Plea Agreement: Paragraph 9, citing U.S.S.G. §§ 6B1.4 & 1B1.3, stipulated to Craig’s “total relevant conduct” consisting solely of knowing firearm possession.
Government’s Post-Plea Conduct: At sentencing the Government argued for (a) a two-level “stolen firearm” enhancement, § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A), and (b) a four-level “connection with another felony” enhancement, § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). Neither fact appeared in the stipulation.
District Court: Adopted both enhancements, raising the Guideline range from 57–71 months to 100–120 months, and imposed 100 months.
Fourth Circuit Holding: The Government breached the plea agreement; sentence vacated; case remanded for resentencing before a new judge; Government’s motion to enforce appellate waiver denied as moot.

Analysis

Precedents Cited and Their Influence

United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) – Established the principle that plea agreements receive heightened scrutiny and ambiguities are construed against the Government. Craig relies on this to interpret “total relevant conduct” strictly.
United States v. Warner, 820 F.3d 678 (4th Cir. 2016) – Provides remedy of resentencing before a different judge when the Government breaches a plea agreement; the court follows this remedy.
United States v. Edgell, 914 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2019) – Closely analogous drug-weight stipulation case; articulated the duty-of-candor vs. duty-to-honor-agreement balance. The Craig panel imports Edgell’s framework.
United States v. Dawson, 587 F.3d 640 (4th Cir. 2009) – Holds that an appellate waiver does not bar a breach-of-plea claim.
United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191 (4th Cir. 2007) and United States v. Johnson, 119 F.4th 343 (4th Cir. 2024) – Supply canons of contract interpretation: ordinary meaning and giving effect to each term.
United States v. Munoz, 408 F.3d 222 (5th Cir. 2005) – Quoted for the proposition that candor cannot hide a breach; demonstrates cross-circuit uniformity.
United States v. Peglera, 33 F.3d 412 (4th Cir. 1994) – Affirms that reassignment on remand is not a criticism of the district judge but a prophylactic measure.

Legal Reasoning of the Court

Plain-Language Analysis: The court focused on Paragraph 9’s reference to Guidelines §§ 6B1.4 and 1B1.3, sections that unambiguously govern sentencing relevant conduct, not merely facts establishing guilt. Therefore “total relevant conduct” means all facts that may affect the Guideline range.
Plea Colloquy Confirmation: At the Rule 11 hearing the prosecutor told the court Paragraph 9 “contains the parties’ stipulation to total relevant conduct,” and the magistrate reiterated this understanding to Craig. No objection was voiced at that time.
Duty of Candor vs. Contractual Duty: Borrowing Edgell’s balancing approach, the panel held the Government may disclose new facts but may not advocate enhancements that contradict the stipulation. Disclosure ≠ advocacy.
Breach Consequences: Because Craig did not receive the benefit of his bargain—an exposure capped by the stipulated facts—the correct remedy is vacatur and resentencing before a new judge to eliminate any risk of lingering bias.

Potential Impact of the Decision

Plea Drafting Precision: Prosecutors in the Fourth Circuit must draft reservation clauses expressly if they wish to litigate additional conduct at sentencing. Vagueness will be construed against them.
Defense Leverage: Defense counsel gain a reinforced precedent to bargain for finite exposure and to challenge Government overreach.
Judicial Economy: By clarifying the rule, the decision may reduce satellite litigation over plea-agreement scope and encourage more straightforward agreements.
National Persuasive Authority: Other circuits, already sympathetic after Munoz and similar cases, may cite Craig to adopt the same bright-line interpretation.
Ethical Guidance: The opinion gives AUSAs a clear protocol: reveal all material facts, but if a stipulation is labeled “total,” refrain from seeking enhancements outside its bounds.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Total Relevant Conduct: A Guidelines term encompassing all acts, omissions, and circumstances a sentencing court may consider when calculating the offense level.
U.S.S.G. § 6B1.4: Allows plea agreements to include factual stipulations that, if complete, bind the parties on sentencing facts.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3: Defines “relevant conduct” for Guideline calculations, such as quantities of drugs or whether a firearm was stolen.
Stolen Firearm Enhancement ( § 2K2.1(b)(4)(A) ): Adds two offense levels if the weapon was stolen, regardless of defendant’s knowledge.
Connected-Felony Enhancement ( § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B) ): Adds four levels if the firearm facilitated or had the potential to facilitate another felony, e.g., drug trafficking.
Breach of Plea Agreement: When either party fails to honor promises that induced the plea. Remedies include specific performance (resentencing) or plea withdrawal, depending on the defendant’s request and prejudice.

Conclusion

In United States v. Dehaven Craig the Fourth Circuit crystallizes an important principle: When the parties designate a stipulation as encompassing the defendant’s “total relevant conduct,” the Government may not later pursue Guideline enhancements hinged on facts outside that stipulation. Transparent disclosure to the court is required; advocacy that undercuts the bargain is forbidden.

The decision strengthens contractual integrity in federal plea practice, underscores the judiciary’s role in policing prosecutorial promises, and furnishes a clear roadmap for future plea negotiations. Going forward, “total means total”—not merely “facts sufficient for the plea.” Prosecutors must either reserve their right to litigate enhancements with unmistakable language or stand by the deal they struck.