USA v. Ratliff

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Terry Lee Ratliff,
Defendant.
No. CR-22-01772-001-TUC-RM (MSA)
ORDER
On November 17, 2022, the Court sentenced Defendant Terry Lee Ratliff in the
above-captioned matter to a 21-month term of imprisonment followed by a 3-year term of
supervised release. (Docs. 25, 27.) On December 27, 2024, Defendant filed a pro se letter
averring that he is in state custody and a hold on him from this Court is preventing him
from obtaining treatment services. (Doc. 30.) The Court struck the filing on the grounds
that Defendant was still represented by counsel in this matter. (Doc. 32.) Defendant’s
attorney then moved to withdraw (Doc. 34), and Defendant filed a pro se Motion
Requesting Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 33). The Court granted the Motion to Withdraw
and partially denied the Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel to the extent it
requested the appointment of counsel. (Doc. 35.)
The Court took the Motion Requesting Appointment of Counsel under advisement
to the extent Defendant requests the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum
to obtain his presence for supervised release revocation proceedings in this Court. (Id.)
The Government filed a Response to that portion of the Motion, opposing Defendant’s
Case 4:22-cr-01772-RM-MSA Document 37 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
request for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. (Doc. 36.) The
Government argues that Defendant is not entitled to speedy disposition of his supervised
release violation charge in this Court, that waiting to bring Defendant into federal custody
until after his release from state custody will alleviate the burdens of shuttling Defendant
back and forth from state and federal custody, and that Defendant will suffer no prejudice
if he is required to finish his state sentence prior to the initiation of revocation proceedings
in this Court, because the Sentencing Guidelines have a policy that the sentence imposed
for a violation of supervised release is to run consecutively to any sentence imposed for a
crime that is the basis for the revocation. (Id.) The Government avers that Defendant’s
projected release date from the Arizona Department of Corrections is July 8, 2026, that a
federal detainer has been lodged, and that the United States Marshal will arrest Defendant
and transport him to federal custody upon his release from state custody. (Id. at 2.)
Because Defendant’s release from state custody will occur in the near future, the
Court will deny the request for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
IT IS ORDERED that the under-advisement portion of Defendant’s Motion
Requesting Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 33) is denied.
Dated this 6th day of April, 2026.
Case 4:22-cr-01772-RM-MSA Document 37 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 2