United States of America v. Darrell Darnell Mcclure, a/k/a Oink

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-4635
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARRELL DARNELL MCCLURE, a/k/a Oink,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00232-CCE-1)
Submitted: April 29, 2016 Decided: May 6, 2016
Before DUNCAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke, First
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Kyle D.
Pousson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Darnell McClure appeals the district court’s
judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing 25 months’
imprisonment and 30 months’ supervised release. On appeal,
McClure contends that the district court clearly erred by
finding that he committed a Grade B violation of the terms of
his supervised release by possessing a firearm and that, based
on this error, his sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.
We review a district court’s judgment revoking supervised
release for an abuse of discretion and its factual findings for
clear error. United States v. Padgett, 788 F.3d 370, 373 (4th
Cir.), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 494 (2015). The district court
need only find a violation of a condition of supervised release
by a preponderance of the evidence. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
(2012); Padgett, 788 F.3d at 374. We have reviewed the record
and conclude that the district court did not clearly err in
relying on the testimony of multiple law enforcement officers
who observed McClure on the evening in question to find by a
preponderance of the evidence that McClure possessed a firearm.
Because our conclusion forecloses the sole argument that
McClure offers in support of his claim that his sentence is
unreasonable, and because we discern no plain error in the
district court’s sentence within the Sentencing Guidelines
policy statement range or its supporting explanation, United

-- 2 of 3 --

3
States v. Webb, 738 F.3d 638, 640-42 (4th Cir. 2013), we
conclude that McClure’s sentence is reasonable.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

-- 3 of 3 --