Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04452/USCOURTS-ca4-19-04452-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Florin Badea
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-4452

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FLORIN BADEA, a/k/a Fernando Badea,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (2:18-cr-00594-RMG-1)

Submitted: February 28, 2020 Decided: March 10, 2020

Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John M. Ervin, III, ERVIN LAW OFFICE, Darlington, South Carolina, for Appellant. 

Michael Rhett DeHart, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED 

STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4452 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 1 of 4
2

PER CURIAM:

Florin Badea appeals his conviction and 46-month sentence imposed after his guilty 

plea, pursuant to a plea agreement, to use of an unauthorized access device, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2) (2018). Badea’s attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious grounds for appeal 

but questioning whether the district court complied with Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 and whether 

Badea’s sentence is reasonable. Although advised of his right to do so, Badea did not file 

a pro se supplemental brief. We affirm. 

Because Badea did not move in the district court to withdraw his guilty plea, the 

acceptance of his guilty plea is reviewed for plain error only. United States v. Williams, 

811 F.3d 621, 622 (4th Cir. 2016). To establish plain error, Badea must establish that “(1) 

an error was made; (2) the error is plain; (3) the error affects substantial rights; and (4) the 

error seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”

United States v. Harris, 890 F.3d 480, 491 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks 

omitted). In the guilty plea context, a defendant meets his burden to establish that a plain 

error affected his substantial rights by showing a reasonable probability that he would not 

have pled guilty but for the district court’s Rule 11 omissions. United States v. Sanya, 774 

F.3d 812, 815-16 (4th Cir. 2014).

Our review of the transcript of the guilty plea hearing leads us to conclude that the 

district court fully complied with Rule 11. The district court ensured that the plea was 

supported by an independent basis in fact and that Badea entered the plea knowingly and 

voluntarily and with an understanding of the consequences. See United States v. DeFusco, 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4452 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 2 of 4
3

949 F.2d 114, 116, 120 (4th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, we discern no plain error in the 

district court’s acceptance of Badea’s guilty plea. 

We review Badea’s sentence for both procedural and substantive reasonableness 

“under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 

(2007). We “first ensure that the district court committed no significant procedural error, 

such as failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the [Sentencing] Guidelines 

range, . . . failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) [(2018)] factors, . . . or failing to 

adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). If there is no 

significant procedural error, we then consider the sentence’s substantive reasonableness 

under “the totality of the circumstances.” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. We presume that a sentence 

within a properly calculated Guidelines range is substantively reasonable, and a defendant 

may rebut this presumption only “by showing that the sentence is unreasonable when 

measured against the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors.” United States v. Louthian, 756 F.3d 

295, 306 (4th Cir. 2014).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that Badea’s sentence is 

procedurally and substantively reasonable. The district court properly calculated the 

advisory Sentencing Guidelines range and sufficiently explained its reasons for imposing 

the sentence Badea received. Furthermore, Badea has not made the showing necessary to 

rebut the presumption of reasonableness that we afford his within-Guidelines-range 

sentence.

In accordance with Anders, we have reviewed the entire record in this case and have 

found no meritorious groundsfor appeal. We therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4452 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 3 of 4
4

This court requires that counsel inform Badea, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Badea requests that a petition be 

filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move 

in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that 

a copy thereof was served on Badea. 

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.

AFFRIMED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-4452 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/10/2020 Pg: 4 of 4