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

Appeals 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 incarcerated 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 $507,791 in 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH 

CIR. 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: 10/24/2017
No. 17-60054

2

fraudulent tax returns filed using the identifying information in 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, 344 (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 at 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, 279 (5th Cir. 

2013). The amount calculated by the district court is plausible in light of the 

record as a whole, 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. 

2143 (2017); U.S.S.G. § 6A1.3(a).

Third, Badger 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). The 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 court imposed a substantively 

unreasonable consecutive sentence based on a misconception regarding his 

 Case: 17-60054 Document: 00514208985 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/24/2017
No. 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