United States v. Karl Amerson, 886 F.3d 568

In May 2016, Amerson was present in a vehicle-involved shooting; police recovered a .40 caliber handgun from an associate’s car that tested positive for Amerson’s DNA. He was not charged for that incident.
On August 26, 2016, police searched Amerson’s apartment (with his girlfriend’s consent) and seized a loaded .22 rifle, a loaded .380 pistol, and ammunition; Amerson admitted ownership and pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms.
As part of his plea deal, the government agreed not to prosecute Amerson for the May handgun possession, but it argued at sentencing that the May possession was relevant conduct under USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2).
The Presentence Report and district court treated the May incident as relevant conduct, increasing the Guidelines range; the district court also applied a two-level obstruction enhancement under USSG § 3C1.1 based on Amerson’s jail calls attempting to get his girlfriend to claim the rifle and threatening a witness.
The Sixth Circuit reviewed de novo whether the May possession was part of the “same course of conduct” and reviewed obstructive-conduct application de novo; it reversed the relevant-conduct finding but affirmed the obstruction enhancement and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Amerson's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether May 2016 handgun possession was "part of the same course of conduct" as the Aug. 2016 possession for USSG § 1B1.3(a)(2)	No: government showed no meaningful connection (lack of similarity, regularity, or contemporaneity)	Yes: both incidents were illegal firearm possessions, involved vehicle-involved shootings, and occurred within ~3.5 months	Reversed: insufficient evidence of similarity or regularity to overcome non-contemporaneous nature; May possession not relevant conduct
Whether Amerson’s jail calls warranted USSG § 3C1.1 obstruction enhancement	No: calls were merely hopes or plans, not substantial steps to suborn perjury or threaten	Yes: repeated direct requests asking girlfriend to claim the rifle and threats against a witness show a substantial step to obstruct	Affirmed: repeated, direct requests to have someone claim the rifle constituted an attempt to obstruct justice

United States v. Phillips, 516 F.3d 479 (6th Cir.) (discusses sliding-scale analysis for similarity, regularity, and temporal proximity under § 1B1.3)
United States v. Hill, 79 F.3d 1477 (6th Cir. 1996) (similarity analysis looks to common victims, purpose, or modus operandi)
United States v. Powell, 50 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 1995) (contemporaneous possession of multiple firearms supports course-of-conduct finding)
United States v. Jackson, 877 F.3d 231 (6th Cir. 2017) (defines constructive possession elements: power and intention to exercise dominion and control)
Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38 (2007) (sets procedural-reasonableness review standards for sentences)