Sixth Circuit Clarifies Limits of “Relevant Conduct” for Excluding Prior Drug Convictions from Criminal History Calculations

Introduction

In United States v. Amon Sudan Sanders-Outlaw, 25 F.4th 1024 (6th Cir. 2025), the Sixth Circuit resolved a recurring sentencing-guidelines question: when may a prior drug-trafficking conviction be treated as “relevant conduct” and excluded from a defendant’s criminal history score under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1) & comment n.1? Defendant Amon Sudan Sanders-Outlaw pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and methamphetamine. At sentencing, he argued his 2021 state conviction for delivery of methamphetamine was part of the “same course of conduct” or “common scheme or plan” as his federal conspiracy and thus should not increase his Guidelines range. The district court disagreed, citing the 20-month interval between offenses and differences in operation. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, clarifying how “relevant conduct” is assessed for criminal history calculations.

Summary of the Judgment

The court held that Sanders-Outlaw failed to carry his burden of showing his 2021 state offense qualified as “relevant conduct” to his federal conviction. Under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2), relevant conduct for drug crimes must be part of the same course of conduct or common scheme or plan as the offense of conviction. After analyzing temporal proximity, accomplice relationships, modus operandi, and purpose, the panel concluded:

The 20-month gap between the state and federal offenses was too long to establish a continuous episode or spree;
Common‐scheme factors (same accomplices, victims, or unique modus operandi) were absent or too general;
Similarly, similarity and regularity of the conduct were insufficient to overcome the temporal gap.

Accordingly, the district court properly counted the state conviction in Sanders-Outlaw’s criminal history score, yielding an advisory Guidelines range of 168–210 months, and imposed a within-Guidelines sentence of 168 months.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Molina-Martinez v. United States, 578 U.S. 189 (2016) – Principles on Guidelines calculation and harmless error.
United States v. Rayyan, 885 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018) – Standard of review for procedural reasonableness and Guidelines calculations.
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) & Comment n.5(B) – Defines “relevant conduct” for drug-trafficking offenses.
U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(a)(1) & Comment n.1 – Excludes present offense and relevant conduct from criminal history.
United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 (6th Cir. 1996) – Recognizes need to avoid overbroad grouping of distinct drug offenses.
United States v. Caballero-Lazo, 788 F. App’x 1014 (6th Cir. 2019) – Burden on defendant to show relevant conduct.
United States v. Henderson, 17 F. App’x 362 (6th Cir. 2001) – Distinguishes “same course of conduct” from “common scheme or plan.”
Additional decisions addressing temporal proximity and similarity: Faison, Easley, Ridley, West, Phillips.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s inquiry focused on two discrete but overlapping concepts in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2):

Common Scheme or Plan – Offenses must be “substantially connected” by common factors (victims, accomplices, purpose, or modus operandi). Sanders-Outlaw pointed to his brother as a common accomplice, use of phones to arrange hand-to-hand sales, and distribution of the same drugs. The court rejected each:
- The record did not show continuous collaboration with his brother across the 20-month hiatus;
- Phone-arranged hand-to-hand sales and common drug types are too generic to establish a distinctive modus operandi;
- No evidence demonstrated the same buyers, suppliers, or drug network bridged the two episodes.
Same Course of Conduct – Requires a “single episode, spree, or ongoing series of events” shown by similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity. Here:
- Temporal Proximity – A 20-month gap is “extremely weak” (citing Hill);
- Regularity – No proof Sanders-Outlaw participated in any drug activity between his two arrests;
- Similarity – Absent the generic overlaps, no specialized facts tied the two operations together.

Weighing these factors, the court concluded that Sanders-Outlaw’s prior state conviction was neither part of the same scheme nor the same course, so it properly counted as criminal history.

Impact

This decision reinforces and refines the threshold for treating past convictions as relevant conduct under the Sentencing Guidelines:

It underscores the importance of a close temporal nexus and demonstrable continuity of criminal activity;
It limits reliance on broad similarities (same drug type or communication method) to exclude prior convictions;
It provides sentencing judges clear guidance to assess common-scheme and same-course factors discretely and strictly;
Defendants challenging criminal history calculations now bear a heavy evidentiary burden to prove the substantive linkages between offenses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Relevant Conduct (U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3) – Acts that form part of the offense for which a defendant is being sentenced; these are excluded from criminal history scoring.
Common Scheme or Plan – Two offenses share a distinctive pattern (same co-conspirators, victims, or unique methods).
Same Course of Conduct – Offenses are part of one continuous series of events or an unbroken spree.
Criminal History Score (U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2) – Numerical total of prior convictions used to enhance a defendant’s advisory Guidelines range.

Conclusion

United States v. Sanders-Outlaw clarifies that a prior drug conviction—even by the same actor—will not be swept into a federal drug conspiracy for Guidelines purposes absent clear proof of a continuous scheme or single course of conduct. Temporal distance, absence of unique common factors, and lack of regular cross-episode activity render prior convictions countable in criminal history. The decision offers trial courts and practitioners precise criteria for evaluating “relevant conduct” disputes and reaffirms the discretion and rigor required in criminal history computations.