UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

After a jury trial, Abdurrahman Cetin was convicted of 

one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344 

(2006), and three counts of aggravated identity theft, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) (2006). 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 jury’s verdict “must be sustained if there is 

substantial evidence, taking the view most favorable to the 

Government, to support it.” Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 

60, 80 (1942). “Substantial evidence is that evidence which a 

‘reasonable 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)). This court reviews both 
3

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 convictions. With regard to the three aggravated 

identity theft convictions, we note 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 
4

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 for reasonableness under an 

abuse-of-discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 

38, 51 (2007). This review requires consideration of both the 

procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence. Id. 

This court must assess whether the district court properly 

calculated the guidelines range, considered the § 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, 551 U.S. 338, 356 (2007)). Finally, this Court 

considers the substantive reasonableness of the 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 the standards set forth in 
5

§ 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 in this court for leave to withdraw from 

representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof 

was served on Cetin. 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