United States v. Deckert, 993 F.3d 399

Officers found a stolen trailer with 530 grams of methamphetamine and five firearms; a warrant issued for Deckert’s arrest.
Three days later Deckert fled a Lumberton officer on a motorcycle, led a high-speed chase, crashed, and was found with 615 grams of methamphetamine and paraphernalia.
A grand jury indicted Deckert on two counts of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and one firearm charge; he pleaded guilty to one meth count and the firearm count.
The presentence report applied a 2‑level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.2 for reckless endangerment during flight; Deckert objected, arguing the flight related only to the dismissed drug count.
The district court ruled the two drug incidents were part of the same "common scheme or plan" under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(2) (groupable offenses) and applied the enhancement; Deckert appealed.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding § 1B1.3(a)(2) governs relevant conduct for groupable offenses and does not incorporate the trailing nexus clause in (a)(1); a dissent argued Southerland requires a nexus to the offense of conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the § 3C1.2 (reckless endangerment during flight) enhancement may be applied when the flight occurred in connection with a different but groupable offense	United States: For groupable offenses § 1B1.3(a)(2) governs relevant conduct and incorporates (a)(1)(A)/(B) (common scheme) but not the trailing clause requiring occurrence during/preparation for/cover‑up of the offense of conviction; thus the flight counts as relevant conduct	Deckert: Southerland and § 1B1.3(a)(1) require a nexus between the flight and the offense of conviction; because the flight related only to a different (dismissed) charge the enhancement is improper	Affirmed: (a)(2) applies to groupable offenses and references only (a)(1)(A)/(B); it does not import (a)(1)'s trailing nexus clause, so the flight was properly considered relevant conduct and the § 3C1.2 enhancement was proper
Whether Deckert may challenge denial of suppression on appeal after an unconditional guilty plea	United States: Deckert waived suppression claims by pleading guilty unconditionally	Deckert: attempted to re-urge suppression motions	Held: Waived — unconditional guilty plea forfeited appellate review of suppression rulings

United States v. Ainabe, 938 F.3d 685 (5th Cir. 2019) (interpreting § 1B1.3(a)(2) as not incorporating (a)(1)’s trailing clause)
United States v. Southerland, 405 F.3d 263 (5th Cir. 2005) (holding § 3C1.2 requires a nexus to the offense of conviction under § 1B1.3(a))
United States v. Barfield, 941 F.3d 757 (5th Cir. 2019) (relevant conduct in drug cases includes acts part of the common drug‑trafficking scheme)
United States v. Heard, 891 F.3d 574 (5th Cir. 2018) (defining “common scheme or plan” factors: common victims, accomplices, purpose, or modus operandi)
United States v. Johnson, 347 F.3d 635 (7th Cir. 2003) (concluding (a)(2) references only (a)(1)(A) and (a)(1)(B), not the trailing clause)
United States v. Ashford, 718 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2013) (discussing disjunctive reading to preserve distinct roles of (a)(1) and (a)(2))
United States v. McCants, 434 F.3d 557 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (recognizing (a)(1) and (a)(2) adopt distinct criteria)