United States v. McClure , 234 F. App'x 63 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-5256
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DARRELL DARNELL MCCLURE, a/k/a Oink,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cr-00232-WL-1)
Submitted: July 24, 2007 Decided: July 26, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, Eric D. Placke,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, David P.
Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Brian Tevis, Third
Year Law Student, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Darnell McClure pled guilty to possession of 26.1
grams of cocaine base (crack) with intent to distribute, 21
U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) (West 1999 & Supp. 2007), and was
sentenced to a term of 164 months’ imprisonment. McClure appeals
his sentence, challenging this court’s decision to accord a
presumption of reasonableness to a sentence within a correctly
calculated guideline range as a return to mandatory guideline
sentencing. He also argues that his sentence, which is in the
middle of the advisory guideline range, is unreasonable because it
is greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3553(a) (West 2000 & Supp. 2007). We affirm.
McClure’s first issue is foreclosed by the Supreme
Court’s decision in Rita v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456 (2007)
(upholding presumption of reasonableness standard). Moreover, our
review of the record discloses that McClure has failed to rebut the
presumption of reasonableness.
We therefore affirm the sentence imposed by the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -