UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-4130
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALFRED J. RANDALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CR-03-260)
Submitted: July 9, 2004 Decided: July 26, 2004
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John W. Luxton, MORCHOWER, LUXTON & WHALEY, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, Michael J.
Elston, Olivia N. Hawkins, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Alfred J. Randall appeals his conviction, following a
conditional guilty plea to possession with intent to distribute
cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (2000), and
possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (2000). Randall contends that
the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence
obtained following his arrest. Finding no reversible error, we
affirm.
We review a district court’s factual findings underlying
a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court’s
legal determinations de novo. Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S.
690, 699 (1996); United States v. Rusher, 966 F.2d 868, 873 (4th
Cir. 1992). When a suppression motion has been denied, we review
the evidence in the light most favorable to the government. See
United States v. Seidman, 156 F.3d 542, 547 (4th Cir. 1998).
Randall’s sole contention on appeal is that the arresting officer’s
failure to comply with Virginia law when arresting him constituted
a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Because the “constitutional
standard is not affected by the fact that state law may impose a
more stringent arrest standard upon state police officers,” Fisher
v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 690 F.2d 1133, 1138 (4th Cir.
1982), and Randall concedes that there was probable cause to arrest
- 2 -
him, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying
Randall’s motion to suppress.
Accordingly, we affirm Randall’s conviction. 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
- 3 -