US v. Abdurrahman Cetin, No. 09-4542 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-4542 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ABDURRAHMAN CETIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:08-cr-00370-RBH-1) Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 23, 2010 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John M. Ervin, III, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. William E. Day, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: After a jury trial, Abdurrahman Cetin was convicted of one count (2006), of and bank fraud, in violation three counts of aggravated of 18 U.S.C. identity violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006). § 1344 theft, in He was sentenced to a total of eighty-four months imprisonment. His counsel has filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), certifying there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but raising for the court s consideration whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions and whether the holding in Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 1886 (2009) invalidates the aggravated identity theft convictions. Cetin filed a pro se supplemental brief raising those same two issues and several others. The Government did not file a brief. We affirm. A substantial jury s verdict evidence, taking Government, to support it. 60, 80 (1942). reasonable must be sustained the view most if there favorable to is the Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. Substantial evidence is that evidence which a finder of fact could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of a defendant s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Cardwell, 433 F.3d 378, 390 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Burgos, 94 F.3d 849, 862 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc)). 2 This court reviews both direct and circumstantial evidence and permits the [G]overnment the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the facts proven to those sought to be established. United States v. Tresvant, 677 F.2d 1018, 1021 (4th Cir. 1982). We do not review the credibility of witnesses and we assume the factfinder resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of the Government. United States v. Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). We conclude that the evidence was more than sufficient to support the four identity convictions. theft With regard convictions, we to note the three aggravated there was sufficient evidence showing Cetin knew that the means of identification he or she unlawfully transferred, possessed, or used, in fact, belonged to another person. Flores-Figueroa, 129 S. Ct. at 1888. Reviewing the jury instructions as to the aggravated identity theft charges, we conclude that even if the district court did not instruct the jury that it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that Cetin knew he was using the means of identification belonging to another person, we find no plain error because there was overwhelming evidence supporting this element of the offense. United States v. Strickland, 245 F.3d 368, 376, 379-81 (4th Cir. 2001). We have also reviewed the district court s decisions to Cetin s objections to the enhancements under the Sentencing 3 Guidelines and conclude there was no reversible error. In addition, we have reviewed Cetin s remaining issues in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude the issues are without merit. We review a sentence abuse-of-discretion standard. 38, 51 (2007). for reasonableness under Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. This review requires consideration of both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. This court must calculated an the assess whether guidelines the range, district considered court the Id. properly § 3553(a) factors, analyzed any arguments presented by the parties, and sufficiently explained the selected sentence. Id. at 49-50; see United States v. Lynn, 592 F.3d 572, 576 (4th Cir. 2010) ( [A]n individualized explanation must accompany every sentence. ); United States v. Carter, 564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). An extensive explanation is not required as long as the appellate court is satisfied that [the district court] has considered the parties arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising [its] own legal decisionmaking authority. United States v. Engle, 592 F.3d 495, 500 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rita v. United States, considers 551 U.S. the 338, 356 substantive (2007)). Finally, reasonableness of this the Court sentence, examin[ing] the totality of the circumstances to see whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in concluding that the sentence it chose satisfied 4 the standards set forth in § 3553(a). United States v. Mendoza-Mendoza, 597 F.3d 212, 216 (4th Cir. 2010). We conclude the sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the record in this case and conclude there are no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm Cetin s convictions and sentence. This court requires that counsel inform Cetin, in writing, of the right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Cetin requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move representation. in and materials legal before court for leave to withdraw from Counsel s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on Cetin. facts this We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 5
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.
