United States v. Tyree Long

── United States v. Tyree Long ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Date: June 03, 2026 Category: General USCA4 Appeal: 25-4346 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/03/2026 Pg: 1 of 5 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-4346 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TYREE RAY LONG, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:23-cr-00222-WO-1) Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 3, 2026 Before RICHARDSON, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ON BRIEF: Eric D. Placke, Interim Federal Public Defender, Kathleen A. Gleason, First Assistant Federal Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Dan Bishop, United States Attorney, Julie C. 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-4346 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/03/2026 Pg: 2 of 5 PER CURIAM: Tyree Ray Long pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, to possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2) (Count One); assaulting a federal officer by use of a deadly and dangerous weapon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1), (b) (Count Two); and discharging a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) (Count Three). The district court imposed a sentence of 444 months’ imprisonment, which was below the advisory Sentencing Guidelines range. On appeal, Long challenges the sentence, arguing that the district court procedurally erred in declining to grant a two-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1(a) (2024). We affirm. Rather than reviewing the merits of Long’s challenge to the denial of the reduction, “we may proceed directly to an assumed error harmlessness inquiry.” United States v. Gomez-Jimenez, 750 F.3d 370, 382 (4th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). To apply this assumed error harmlessness inquiry we require (1) knowledge that the district court would have reached the same result even if it had decided the [Sentencing G]uidelines issue the other way and (2) a determination that the sentence would be [substantively] reasonable even if the [G]uidelines issue had been decided in the defendant’s favor. United States v. McDonald, 850 F.3d 640, 643 (4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also United States v. Shivers, 56 F.4th 320, 327 (4th Cir. 2022). An asserted error will be deemed harmless if we are certain that these requirements are satisfied. United States v. Gomez, 690 F.3d 194, 203 (4th Cir. 2012). Here, at the sentencing hearing, after denying Long’s requested reduction for acceptance of responsibility, the district court correctly calculated his advisory Guidelines 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-4346 Doc: 25 Filed: 06/03/2026 Pg: 3 of 5 range as life imprisonment. However, the court noted that the statutory maximum sentences for Counts One and Two capped Long’s advisory Guidelines range at 360 months. Long was also subj