Interstate “Resupply” Drug Transport as Relevant Conduct Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2)

1. Introduction

United States v. James France (3d Cir. June 3, 2026) addresses a recurring federal sentencing issue: when uncharged (or dismissed) drug activity may be treated as “relevant conduct” and folded into the drug-quantity calculation that drives the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range.

After a jury conviction for distributing and possessing with intent to distribute methamphetamine, James France challenged his sentence on the ground that the District Court improperly counted a separate, earlier Illinois incident—where police found distribution quantities of methamphetamine and paraphernalia in his vehicle—as relevant conduct under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2). The key dispute was whether that 2015 Illinois episode was sufficiently connected to the 2016 controlled sale in Pennsylvania (to cooperating customer Paul Theriault) to be treated as part of the “same course of conduct.”

2. Summary of the Opinion

The Third Circuit affirmed. It held the District Court did not clearly err in treating the Illinois possession-with-intent episode as relevant conduct because the record supported a finding that both the Illinois incident and the Pennsylvania sale were components of a years-long, interstate methamphetamine trafficking operation—specifically, a “sourcing-and-selling” cycle in which France obtained methamphetamine in California and distributed it in and around Pittsburgh and nearby states.

The panel emphasized that France’s Illinois stop occurred while he was traveling from California back to Pittsburgh with a distribution quantity of methamphetamine and trafficking paraphernalia, supported by GPS entries and the quantity seized. The 15-month interval between the Illinois incident and the offense of conviction did not defeat the “same course of conduct” finding given the similarity and regularity of the conduct.

3. Analysis

3.1. Precedents Cited

United States v. West, 643 F.3d 102 (3d Cir. 2011)

West supplied the governing appellate standard of review: a district court’s relevant-conduct determination is reviewed for clear error. That standard materially shaped the outcome. Rather than asking whether the Third Circuit would have reached the same conclusion in the first instance, the question became whether the District Court’s finding—i.e., that the Illinois incident was part of the same course of conduct—was “reasonably” supported by the record and not implausible. The panel repeatedly framed its reasoning in those deferential terms.

United States v. McIntosh, 124 F.4th 199 (3d Cir. 2024)

McIntosh influenced the interpretive backdrop for applying the Sentencing Guidelines and their commentary. The panel noted the Government’s position that the Guidelines commentary does not control when the guideline text is unambiguous, quoting McIntosh: “If the Guideline is unambiguous, we disregard the commentary.”

Importantly, the court did not decide whether § 1B1.3(a)(2) is ambiguous or whether the application note’s three-factor test is authoritative in this context. Instead, it assumed (for sake of argument) that the commentary’s factors applied and held France still lost. The practical effect is that, post-McIntosh, litigants should be prepared to win (or defend) relevant-conduct disputes on the guideline text and record facts alone, without relying exclusively on commentary.

United States v. Bacallao, 149 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 1998)

France leaned on Bacallao to argue the Illinois incident was too geographically and temporally distant to count as relevant conduct. The Third Circuit distinguished it on evidentiary linkage: in Bacallao, the allegedly relevant drug purchases were undertaken by associates, were distant in time/place, and lacked evidence connecting them to the defendant’s known trafficking beyond association.

Here, by contrast, the record tied France personally to the Illinois drugs, showed trafficking paraphernalia, and supported the inference that he was transporting methamphetamine from his established sourcing region (California) to his established distribution region (Pittsburgh). Thus, the panel treated distance as an expected feature of an interstate trafficking “cycle,” not a sign of disconnect.

3.2. Legal Reasoning

The legal hinge was U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), which includes as relevant conduct acts that were “part of the same course of conduct” as the offense of conviction (and, alternatively, acts that were part of a “common scheme or plan,” though the panel did not need to rely on that route).

Applying the familiar similarity/regularity/temporal proximity framework from the § 1B1.3 commentary (even while noting the post-McIntosh status question), the court reasoned:

• Similarity: Transporting distribution quantities from California to Pittsburgh is operationally similar to selling California-sourced methamphetamine in Pittsburgh—both are integral steps in the same trafficking enterprise. The court rejected France’s attempt to reframe the Illinois episode as merely “joint possession” incidental to a sexual encounter, calling that framing inconsistent with the paraphernalia, quantity, and travel evidence.
• Regularity: The Illinois trip fit France’s recurring practice of traveling to California to replenish supply. The court treated the Illinois location as happenstance of the return route, not a distinctive “Illinois-specific” venture.
• Time interval: Although 15 months can be substantial, it did not outweigh similarity and regularity in the context of a multi-year, ongoing trafficking operation. The panel also relied on the commentary’s recognition that temporal gaps are less important when the conduct is episodic by nature or occurs at intervals.

Having found the Illinois episode relevant, the District Court properly included the seized Illinois methamphetamine in the § 2D1.1 drug-quantity computation, which increased France’s base offense level and advisory range. The Third Circuit’s role was limited to determining whether that inclusion was clearly erroneous; it held it was not.

3.3. Impact

Although designated “Not Precedential,” the opinion is instructive in three ways:

1. Resupply conduct counts: Courts may treat upstream logistics—interstate transport of distribution quantities and tools of the trade— as part of the “same course of conduct” as downstream sales, even when separated by many months, where the evidence supports an ongoing trafficking cycle.
2. Distance is not dispositive in interstate schemes: In an operation defined by interstate sourcing and distribution, geographic spread is expected and may strengthen (not weaken) the inference of a single course of conduct.
3. Post-McIntosh posture: The panel signals that, even if the commentary’s three-factor test is debated after United States v. McIntosh, the factual record can independently sustain relevant-conduct findings under the guideline text—encouraging litigants to focus on concrete linkage evidence (quantities, paraphernalia, travel data, sourcing patterns) rather than categorical arguments about time or place.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• “Relevant conduct” (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3): At sentencing, courts often consider more than the specific act(s) of conviction. If other conduct is part of the same overall criminal behavior (the same “course of conduct”), it can be counted when calculating the Guidelines range.
• “Same course of conduct”: A practical, fact-based concept: are the acts sufficiently connected—by similarity, repetition, and context— to be treated as one ongoing series rather than isolated events?
• Guidelines “commentary”: Notes published with the Guidelines that historically guided interpretation. After decisions like United States v. McIntosh, commentary may carry less weight if the guideline text is unambiguous, making text-and-record arguments more central.
• “Clear error” review: A highly deferential appellate standard. Even if another view is possible, the sentence is affirmed unless the district court’s factual determination is implausible or without support in the record.
• Drug-quantity driven offense level (U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1): For drug crimes, the total quantity attributable to the defendant—often including relevant conduct—largely sets the base offense level and thus the advisory range.

5. Conclusion

United States v. James France affirms a broad, operation-focused view of relevant conduct in drug cases: when evidence supports an ongoing trafficking enterprise, an interstate resupply trip involving distribution quantities and paraphernalia can be treated as part of the same course of conduct as a later sale, even with a substantial time gap. The decision also illustrates the continuing, post- United States v. McIntosh shift toward grounding Guidelines disputes in the text and factual record, with commentary playing a potentially reduced role where ambiguity is contested.