IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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