### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 60054 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
CRAYTONIA LATROY BADGER , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:16

- CR

- 14

- 1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Craytonia Latroy Badger pleaded guilty to one count of possession of fifteen or more counterfeit or unauthorized access devices , based on the discovery of social security numbers and other identifying information in his personal space while he was incarcer ated in Mississippi . After denying Badger’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the district court calculated his sentencing guidelines range based on a loss amount that included $50 7 , 791 in

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED October 24, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-60054 Document: 00514208985 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/24/2017No. 17

- 60054

2 fraudulent tax returns filed using the identifying information i n his possession. The district court sentenced Badger to 63 months of imprisonment , running consecutively to an undischarged Arkansas sentence of imprisonment. Badger now appeals, challenging the denial of the motion to withdraw his guilty plea, the loss calculation , and the consecutive nature of the sentence. Finding no error, we affirm. First, Badger fails to show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. See United States v. Carr , 740 F.2d 339, 34 4 (5th Cir. 1984). The pertinent Carr factors, including the district court’s factual finding that Badger’s testimony was not credible, support the denial of the motion. See United States v. Brewster , 137 F.3d 853, 858 (5th Cir. 1998); Carr , 740 F.2d a t 343

- 44. Second, Badger fails to show that the district court clearly erred in its loss calculation. See United States v. Morrison , 713 F.3d 271, 27 9 (5th Cir. 2013). The amount calculated by the district court i s plausible in light of the
record as a w hole, which included the testimony of the case agent who investigated the fraud and possessed sufficient indicia of reliability

. See United States v. Hearns , 845 F.3d 641, 649 (5th Cir.), cert. denied 137 S. Ct.
21 43 (2017); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a). Third, Ba dger fails to demonstrate procedural or substantive error with respect to the consecutive sentence. See United States v. Setser , 607 F.3d 128, 130 (5th Cir. 2010); United States v. Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d 357, 360 (5th Cir. 2009)

. T he district court ’s explanation of the consecutive sentence was procedurally adequate. See Mondragon

- Santiago , 564 F.3d at 360; see also United States v. Everist , 368 F.3d 517, 520

- 21 (5th Cir. 2004). The record does
not support Badger’s contention that the district cour t imposed a substantively unreasonable consecutive sentence based on a misconception regarding his Case: 17-60054 Document: 00514208985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017No. 17

- 60054

3 undischarged Arkansas sentence or that the district court otherwise abused its discretion. See Setser , 607 F.3d at 130. AFFIRMED. Case: 17-60054 Document: 00514208985 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/24/2017