United States of America v. Randolph Leif Kilfoil

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-4691
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RANDOLPH LEIF KILFOIL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00271-TDS-1)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 14, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis C. Allen, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr.,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United States
Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Randolph Leif Kilfoil entered a conditional guilty
plea to possession of a firearm by a felon, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006), reserving his right to challenge the
district court’s denial of his motion to suppress the firearm at
issue. The district court sentenced him to eighty-five months’
imprisonment. We affirm.
Appellate counsel contends that the district court
erred in denying the motion to suppress because the officers
lacked a reasonable suspicion to seize Kilfoil and improperly
entered the residence without a warrant or probable cause. We
review the factual findings underlying the denial of a motion to
suppress for clear error and the court’s legal conclusions de
novo. United States v. Branch, 537 F.3d 328, 337 (4th Cir.
2008). The evidence is “construed in the light most favorable
to the Government, the prevailing party below.” United States
v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704 (4th Cir. 2006).
With these standards in mind, we have considered
carefully the arguments raised by Kilfoil on appeal and conclude
for the reasons stated by the district court that the court
properly denied the motion to suppress. United States v.
Kilfoil, No. 1:09-cr-00271-TDS-1 (M.D.N.C. Nov. 24, 2009).
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court
entered on June 18, 2010. We dispense with oral argument

-- 2 of 3 --

3
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --