USA v. Ortiz-Mata et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§ Criminal No. 3:18-CR-186-D
VS. 	§
§
BRANDON JAMAAL RAMBO, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendant Brandon Jamaal Rambo (“Rambo”) has filed July 29, 2025 and November
18, 2025 motions for reconsideration of the court’s December 2, 2024 memorandum opinion
and order and a January 21, 2026 letter seeking reconsideration of the court’s February 8,
2024 order. The court denies the motions and request for reconsideration.
I
A
On September 12, 2024 Rambo filed a motion for compassionate release under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), asserting that release would enable him to care for his medically
disabled mother. In a December 2, 2024 memorandum opinion and order, the court denied
the motion. 	The court assumed arguendo that Rambo had shown an extraordinary and
compelling reason for release, but it declined to grant his motion after considering the factors
set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).
On July 29, 2025 Rambo filed the first of the motions for reconsideration now pending
Case 3:18-cr-00186-D Document 176 Filed 01/23/26 Page 1 of 4 PageID <pageID>

for decision—a motion for reconsideration of the court’s December 2, 2024 memorandum
opinion and order. 	In his motion, Rambo contends that he has “completed a variety of
educational, vocational, and life skills courses that have provided [him] with the tools to
become a productive and law-abiding member of society,” that he has “maintained an
unblemished disciplinary record,” that he is “the sole caretaker and only child of [his]
disabled mother,” and that he has “minimum risk pattern score and meet[s] eligibility
requirements under the First Step Act guidelines.” D. Mot. (ECF No. 169) at 1. The court
ordered the government to respond, which it did on October 23, 2025.
On November 18, 2025 Rambo filed the second of the motions for reconsideration
now pending for decision—a motion for reconsideration of the court’s December 2, 2024
memorandum opinion and order. Rambo again seeks compassionate release, this time based
on the following asserted “compelling reasons”: (1) he is the sole caretaker for his mother,
who is vision impaired and requires daily assistance, (2) he has a low-risk classification and
has demonstrated rehabilitation at FCI Beaumont Camp, and (3) he has a support network
for successful reintegration into the community.
B
The court denies both motions for reconsideration. Rambo has not presented any new,
material information that the court did not already consider or account for in denying his
September 12, 2024 motion for compassionate release. 	Accordingly, for the reasons
explained in the court’s December 2, 2024 memorandum opinion and order and this
memorandum opinion and order, the court denies Rambo’s motions for reconsideration filed
- 2 -
Case 3:18-cr-00186-D Document 176 Filed 01/23/26 Page 2 of 4 PageID <pageID>

on July 29, 2025 and November 18, 2025.
II
A
Rambo’s latest request for reconsideration, filed January 21, 2026, is in the form of
a letter.
Rambo filed on November 27, 2023 a motion to reduce sentence pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. On
February 8, 2024 the court denied the motion. On March 1, 2024 Rambo filed a request for
reconsideration of the court’s February 8, 2024 order, and, on March 6, 2024, a motion for
reconsideration of that order. The court denied Rambo’s March 1, 2024 request and March
6, 2024 motion. Rambo then filed a March 22, 2024 motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P.
60(b) and a July 22, 2024 request to correct the worksheet submitted by Probation in relation
to his § 3582(c)(2) motion. The court denied the motion and request, noting in its August
7, 2024 order that “[i]n an August 5, 2024 letter to Rambo, the United States Probation
Officer has explained in detail why the worksheet is correct and Rambo is not eligible for a
sentence reduction under Amendment 821.” Order (ECF No. 155) at 1.
Rambo again moves, this time in a letter to the court, for reconsideration of its
February 8, 2024 order denying his motion under § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 821. He
contends in his letter that a 2-point reduction “would be a major difference in [his] sentence
if granted,” that he is “heading into [his] 8th year of being incarcerated” and has “zero
infractions,” and that he has “completed every course/class that the prison has to offer.” D.
- 3 -
Case 3:18-cr-00186-D Document 176 Filed 01/23/26 Page 3 of 4 PageID <pageID>

Mot. (ECF No. 175) at 1.
B
None of the reasons on which Rambo relies justifies relief under § 3582(c)(2) or
Amendment 821. 	And the court has already explained that Rambo is not eligible for a
sentence reduction under Amendment 821.
Accordingly, for the reasons explained in this memorandum opinion and order and in
the court’s previous orders, the court denies Rambo’s July 29, 2025 and November 18, 2025
motions and January 21, 2026 request for reconsideration.
SO ORDERED.
January 23, 2026.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE
- 4 -
Case 3:18-cr-00186-D Document 176 Filed 01/23/26 Page 4 of 4 PageID <pageID>