USA v. Ratliff, No. 08-51148 (5th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED June 30, 2009 No. 08-51148 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. DELBERT JAMES RATLIFF Defendant-Appellant Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:08-CR-123-1 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Delbert James Ratliff appeals the 262-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to conspiring to manufacture 50 grams or more of methamphetamine and possessing pseudoephedrine with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine. On appeal, Ratliff argues that his sentence is procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Ratliff contends that when fashioning his sentence, the district court did not consider all of the 18 U.S.C. * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR.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. No. 08-51148 § 3553(a) factors. Ratliff further contends that his sentence of imprisonment was greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing listed in § 3553(a). This court reviews the procedural and substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of discretion. Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007). The district court sentenced Ratliff to a within-guidelines sentence of 262 months of imprisonment. A review of the record reveals that the district court listened to and considered Ratliff s arguments and that the district court s choice of sentence was properly based on several of the § 3553(a) factors. The district court did not stress one factor over another. Ratliff s within-guidelines sentence is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. See United States v. Campos-Maldonado, 531 F.3d 337, 338 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 328 (2008). Because Ratliff has not shown that his sentence is procedurally or substantively unreasonable, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 2

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.