Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl A. STUCKEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-29
Citations: 698 F. App'x 74
Docket Number: No. 17-6620
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl A. STUCKEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and •WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 74–75

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 argu ment 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),