Cases

PUBLISHED OPINION OF THE COURT O’TOOLE, Judge: This ease is before us on an interlocutory appeal by the Government, pursuant to Article 62, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 862, and Rule for Courts-Martial 908, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States (2005 ed.). The Government contends the military judge erred as a matter of law when he dismissed the charge and its two specifications, conclu

493 F.3d 812 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tracy RATLIFF-WHITE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 06-1960. United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Argued November 28, 2006. Decided July 10, 2007. *813 *814 Rick D. Young (argued), Office of the United

PER CURIAM. This appeal follows a jury trial and conviction of Defendant/Appellant Donnie Ratliff (“Defendant”) for mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Defendant’s appeal raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in denying the jury’s request to end deliberations for the day; (2) whether the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Defendant’s businesses’ profits as irrelevant; and (3) whether the tri

PER CURIAM. Defendants James Franklin and David James Ratliff appeal from the district court’s order denying the government’s motion to reduce their sentences pursuant to Fed.R.CrimJ?. 35(b). Franklin and Ratliff pled guilty to drug and firearm charges, and were convicted and sentenced on February 28, 1996. At the time of sentencing, they possessed information regarding drag activity in Chicago; however,

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________ No. 06-1960 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TRACY RATLIFF-WHITE, Defendant-Appellant. ____________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of I

CLARK, Judge: A general court-martial consisting of officer and enlisted members convicted the appellant, contrary to his pleas, of conspiracy to commit robbery,1 robbery by force and violence,2 three specifications of assault with intent to commit robbery,3 and false swearing.4 The court-martial sentenced the

983 F.2d 1062 U.S.v.Ratliff** NO. 92-7100 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. Jan 20, 1993 1 Appeal From: S.D.Tex. 2

951 F.2d 368 U.S.v.Ratliff* NO. 91-5161 United States Court of Appeals,Eleventh Circuit. Dec 02, 1991 1 Appeal From: S.D.Fla. 2

902 F.2d 957 U.S.v.Ratliff* NO. 89-1994 United States Court of Appeals,Fifth Circuit. MAY 03, 1990 1 Appeal From: N.D.Tex. 2

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge. Debra Ratliff appeals from the district court’s denial of her § 2255 motion to vacate her conviction. The lone issue preserved for review is whether her trial attorney’s failure to file a motion to suppress constituted ineffective assistance of counsel (“LAC”) and rendered involuntary her guilty plea. To prove that claim, Ratliff was required to show th

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied. Same case below, 376 Fed. Appx. 830.

955 A.2d 199 (2008) RATLIFF v. U.S. No. 07-CM-1099. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. July 24, 2008. Decision without published opinion. Affirmed.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

543 U.S. 1076 RATLIFFv.UNITED STATES. No. 04-7420. Supreme Court of United States. January 10, 2005. 1 C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.

538 U.S. 953 RATLIFFv.UNITED STATES. No. 02-9183. Supreme Court of United States. March 31, 2003. 1 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. 2 C. A.

Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 204(d) of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), codified in 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d), provides in pertinent part that “a court shall award to a prevailing party . . . fees and other expenses ... in any civil action . . . brought by or against the United States . . . unless the court finds that the position