1B1.3(a)(1)(A), (a)(2). The commentary to the Guidelines further define “same course of
conduct” as events or activities that are “significantly connected or related to each other
so as to warrant the conclusion that they are part of a single episode, spree, or ongoing
series of offenses.” Id. § 1B1.3 cmt. n. 9(B). This conduct need not be the subject of a
formal charge or an element of the offense of conviction, nor must it occur
contemporaneously with the offense conduct. United States v. Rudolph, 137 F.3d 173,
177 (3d Cir. 1998); United States v. Kulick, 629 F.3d 165, 171 (3d Cir. 2010). In
determining whether two offenses constitute the same course of conduct, our case law
requires consideration of three factors: “(1) the temporal proximity between the two
offenses; (2) the similarity of the offenses; and (3) the regularity of the offenses.”
U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3 cmt. n.9; Kulick, 629 F.3d at 171 (3d Cir. 2010).
The District Court did not err in concluding that this three-part test was satisfied
here. The illicit drugs found in Gonzales’ residence involved the same type of illegal
activity as the offense charged and was consistent with his activities during the six-year
conspiracy. Thus, the post-conspiracy conduct bears a high degree of similarity to, and
was part of the same regular and continuous pattern of conduct as, the charged offense.
Thirteen months had elapsed between the charge in the information and the arrest during
which the firearms were found, but that gap alone does not enable safety-valve eligibility.
See United States v. Wilson, 106 F.3d 1140, 1144 (3d Cir. 1997) (citing United States v.
Richards, 27 F.3d 465, 468-69 (10
Cir. 1994) (time gap of 17 months insufficient to
trigger safety-valve relief)). Here, there is nothing to suggest a cessation of illegal
conduct during this period. Moreover, when arrested, Gonzales was in possession of