United States v. Deion Liles

── United States v. Deion Liles ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: May 22, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-4411 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/22/2026 Pg: 1 of 7 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-4410 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEION TYRELL LILES, Defendant - Appellant. No. 25-4411 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DEION TYRELL LILES, Defendant - Appellant. No. 25-4412 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, USCA4 Appeal: 25-4411 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/22/2026 Pg: 2 of 7 v. DEION TYRELL LILES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:18-cr-00238-WO-1; 1:19-cr-00230- WO-2; 1:24-cr-00271-WO-1) Submitted: April 8, 2026 Decided: May 22, 2026 Before KING, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges. No. 25-4410 affirmed, No. 25-4411 affirmed and remanded, and No. 25-4412 affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Brian Aus, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Julie Carol Niemeier, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4411 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/22/2026 Pg: 3 of 7 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated appeals, Deion Tyrell Liles appeals the 66-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(8) (No. 25-4410), and the 21-month sentences imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release (Nos. 25-4411, 25-4412). On appeal, Liles’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating there are no meritorious grounds for appeal but questioning whether Liles’s sentences are reasonable and whether the district court erroneously found Liles committed violations of the conditions of his supervised release that the Government did not pursue. The Government has declined to file a response brief, and Liles has not filed a pro se supplemental brief after being notified of his right to do so. Beginning with Liles’s 66-month sentence for the § 922(g) offense, we review criminal sentences for reasonableness “under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.” United States v. Claybrooks, 90 F.4th 248, 257 (4th Cir. 2024) (internal quotation marks omitted). In reviewing whether a sentence is reasonable, we must first ensure the district court did not commit “significant procedural error, such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence—including an explanation for any deviation from the Guidelines range.” United States v. Fowler, 948 F.3d 663, 668 (4th Cir. 2020) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4