US v. Darrell McClure, No. 15-4635 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-4635 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DARRELL DARNELL MCCLURE, a/k/a Oink,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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Darrell Darnell McClure appeals the district court’s judgment revoking his supervised release and imposing 25 months’ imprisonment McClure and contends 30 months’ that the supervised district release. court On clearly appeal, 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. (2012); Padgett, 788 F.3d at 374. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3) 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, district policy and court’s statement because sentence range or we discern within its the no error Sentencing supporting 2 plain in the Guidelines explanation, United 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. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
