USA vs. Ratliff, (5th Cir. 2002)

Text

---

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-60210 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RICKIE C. RATLIFF, also known as Ricky Charles Ratliff, DefendantAppellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 3:01-CR-157-ALL-LS December 24, 2002 Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Rickie C. Ratliff appeals his conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

Ratliff argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on newlydiscovered evidence and that the evidence was not sufficient to support his conviction.

A review of the record indicates that Ratliff failed to meet all five factors required for the trial court to grant a motion for a new trial. S ee United States v. Bowler , 252 F.3d 741, 747 (5th Cir. 2001). Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Rat liffÂ’s motion for a new trial.

See id. Having reviewed the record, the court concludes that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, would permit a rational trier of fact to find Ratliff guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Pankhurst , 118 F.3d 345, 352 (5th Cir. 1997). The presence of the inconsistencies upon which Ratliff relies does not render the evidence insufficient. S ee United States v. Estrada , 974 F.2d 144 9, 1457-58 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court properly denied Ratliff§ 922(g)(1) must be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

---