Each of the three instances of possession followed a common pattern: Gales possessed a stolen firearm and then Gales or his friends sold the firearm, always to the same store. A common purpose underlay Gales’ possession of the firearms in each instance — selling the firearm. Just two months separated the sale of the Mossberg from the sale of the other two guns, a far shorter time span than the fourteen months that Faison upheld and the three and a half years that Gilbert upheld. See also U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3, cmt. n. 9(b); United States v. Powell, 50 F.3d 94, 104 (1st Cir.1995) (“[T]he ... nearly contemporaneous! ] possession of uncharged firearms is ... relevant conduct in the context of a felon-in-possession prosecution.”); United States v. Windle, 74 F.3d 997, 1000-01 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Attempting to overcome this conclusion, Gales
holding that two acts of mail fraud within five months constituted a pattern holding that a five month delay is unreasonable holding that the definition in  921a20 applied throughout the entire firearms chapter of the uscode holding that a five month delay was unreasonable holding that unlawful possession of five firearms throughout a four to five month period established a behavior pattern of unlawfully possessing   firearms  that meets the same course of conduct requirement