Case Explained: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff – v. TYREE LASHAWN MAY Defendant –

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-08-06 The Fourth Circuit affirmed Tyree May’s sentence, rejecting his challenge to two Sentencing Guidelines enhancements on the grounds that they did not violate *Apprendi v. New Jersey*. The court applied the standard of review for clearly erroneous factual findings and held that under *United States v. Benkahla*, sentencing judges may find facts relevant to determining an advisory Guidelines range by a preponderance of the evidence, provided the sentence remains within the statutory maximum authorized by the jury’s verdict. The court reasoned that May failed to explain how *Erlinger v. United States* undermined this precedent, as *Apprendi* concerns facts increasing penalties beyond statutory limits rather than those affecting only advisory guidelines. Furthermore, the court found the district court’s factual determination plausible based on the record in its entirety, specifically noting that officer testimony regarding victim statements adequately supported the finding even if other evidence was ambiguous. Consequently, May’s conviction and sentence stand without oral argument. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.