UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DARRYL STUCKEY (2017)

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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   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 Pronomo 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).

PER CURIAM: