Case ID: f-appx_698/html/0074-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl A. STUCKEY, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 17-6620
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: September 27, 2017
    Decided: September 29, 2017
    Darryl A. Stuckey, Appellánt Pro Se. Jeffrey Brian Bender, Gregory Victor Davis, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Kelly O. Hayes, Joseph McFarlane, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland; Sean B. O’Connell, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and •WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Darryl A. Stuckey appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for early termination of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Stuckey, No. 8:12-cr-00042-RWT-1 (D. Md. filed May 2, 2017, & entered May 3, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED 
      
      To the extent Stuckey seeks vacatur of the restitution order entered at his original sentencing, his failure to raise any challenge to the order below precludes our review of his claim on appeal. See Pornomo v. United States, 814 F.3d 681, 686 (4th Cir. 2016) (explaining that, absent exceptional circumstances, this court generally declines to consider issues raised for first time on appeal),