USA v. Valdez-Villalobos et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	§
§
Plaintiff, 	§
§ Criminal No. 3:16-CR-286-D(23)
VS. 	§
§
BRIAN OTT, 	§
§
Defendant. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendant Brian Ott (“Ott”) moves for a reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A). For the reasons that follow, the court denies the motion.
I
Ott pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C). 	On April 7, 2017 the court
sentenced him to 130 months’ imprisonment, followed by 3 years of supervised release. On
December 20, 2023 Ott filed a motion for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
and Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The court granted Ott’s
motion and on February 14, 2024 reduced his prison sentence from 130 months to 116
months.
On December 3, 2025 Ott filed the instant motion for sentence reduction under 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). 	The court ordered the government to respond, which it did on
December 29, 2025. On February 9, 2026 Ott filed a reply to the government’s response.
Case 3:16-cr-00286-D Document 978 Filed 03/23/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID <pageID>

Ott’s motion is now ripe for decision.
II
A
A district court lacks inherent authority to modify a defendant’s sentence after it has
been imposed. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c). But under § 3582(c)(1)(A), as amended by the First
Step Act of 2018, “[a] court, on a motion by the [Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)] or by
the defendant after exhausting all BOP remedies, may reduce or modify a term of
imprisonment, probation, or supervised release after considering the factors of 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a), if ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction.’” 	United
States 	v. 	Chambliss, 	948 	F.3d 	691, 	692-93 	(5th 	Cir. 	2020) 	(quoting 	18 	U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)); see also id. at 693 n.1.* When deciding whether to modify a term of
imprisonment, the court must “consider[] the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C. §] 3553(a) to the
extent that they are applicable.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Of course, it is now well settled
that “neither the policy statement” of the Sentencing Commission “nor the commentary to
it binds a district court addressing a prisoner’s own motion under § 3582.” United States v.
Shkambi, 993 F.3d 388, 393 (5th Cir. 2021). To be clear, the court does not consider itself
to be bound by U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 in deciding this § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion brought by a
*Ott contends in his motion that “more tha[n] 30 days have elapsed since [he]
requested the Warden at FCI Texarkana to file a Motion under § 3582 on his behalf.” D.
Mot. 2. Because doing so does not change the outcome of the decision on Ott’s motion, the
court will assume arguendo that he exhausted his administrative remedies, as required under
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
- 2 -
Case 3:16-cr-00286-D Document 978 Filed 03/23/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID <pageID>

prisoner.
B
In support of his motion, Ott seeks a reduction in sentence to time served based on the
following 	“extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reasons”: 	(1) 	he 	became 	addicted 	to
methamphetamine at a young age, when “he was not equipped with the maturity to identify
such a rapidly growing addition nor the tools to remove himself from the path of self-
destruction,” D. Mot. 4; (2) he has already served the term of incarceration contemplated by
the court, considering time served in state custody for the same acts that formed a basis for
his federal conviction; (3) he has experienced unusually severe conditions of confinement
due to the loss of eight family members and the impact of COVID-19; and (4) he has made
extraordinary efforts toward rehabilitation during his incarceration.
Because the court concludes below that Ott’s motion should be denied after
considering the § 3553(a) factors, it will assume arguendo that Ott has shown an
extraordinary and compelling reason. See, e.g., United States v. Rudzavice, 831 Fed. Appx.
731, 732 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (declining to decide whether risk of reinfection during
COVID-19 pandemic constituted extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate
release because district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that defendant
remained danger to safety of others and that his immediate release would not be in the
interest of justice and would minimize the seriousness of his crimes).
- 3 -
Case 3:16-cr-00286-D Document 978 Filed 03/23/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID <pageID>

III
The court now considers the § 3553(a) factors. As noted, when deciding whether to
modify a term of imprisonment, the court must “consider[] the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.
§] 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” 	18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A); see also
Shkambi, 993 F.3d at 393 (“The district court on remand is bound only by § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i)
and, as always, the sentencing factors in § 3553(a).”). Under § 3553(a)(2), the court can
consider such factors as “the need for the sentence imposed—(A) to reflect the seriousness
of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct; [and] (C) to protect the public from
further crimes of the defendant[.]” “[C]onsideration of the pertinent § 3553(a) factors
functions as a reliable cross-check against (and can result in the veto of) the preliminary
conclusion that there are extraordinary and compelling reasons to reduce [a defendant’s]
sentence.” United States v. Rainwater, 2021 WL 1610153, at *3 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 26, 2021)
(Fitzwater, J.). “When a district court denies a motion for compassionate release, it must
give ‘“specific factual reasons” for its decision.’” United States v. Stanford, 79 F.4th 461,
463 (5th Cir. 2023) (quoting United States v. Handlon, 53 F.4th 348, 351 (5th Cir. 2022)).
In this case, Ott is currently serving a 130-month sentence (reduced to 116 months)
for conspiring to possess and distribute a large amount of methamphetamine, a drug that is
extremely deleterious to users and the community at large. He committed this offense while
under a criminal justice sentence of probation. At sentencing, the presentence report placed
him in criminal history category V due to his multiple prior convictions, including for assault
- 4 -
Case 3:16-cr-00286-D Document 978 Filed 03/23/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID <pageID>

of a public servant. Ott is not eligible for release from prison until May 2, 2028. If the court
grants his motion, it will be ordering him released more than 2 years before he would
otherwise be eligible. In the court’s view, the sentence that the court originally imposed is
required to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide
just punishment for the offense, and to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.
Consideration of the remaining factors does not persuade the court that a lower sentence
would be sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in
§ 3553(a)(2). See Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694 (holding that district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying compassionate release on grounds that, inter alia, “requiring
[defendant] to serve the remainder of his sentence would ‘provide just punishment for the
offense’ and ‘afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct.’”).
Weighing the pertinent § 3553(a) factors together, the court concludes that Ott’s
sentence should not be reduced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). See, e.g., United States v.
Samak, 832 Fed. Appx. 330, 331 (5th Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (affirming denial of motion for
compassionate release and holding that district court did not abuse its discretion when it
“specifically cit[ed] the nature of [defendant’s] offense conduct, the need for the sentence
imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, the need to protect the public, and the need
to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct”).
- 5 -
Case 3:16-cr-00286-D Document 978 Filed 03/23/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID <pageID>

* 	* 	*
Accordingly, the court denies Ott’s December 3, 2025 motion for reduction of
sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
SO ORDERED.
March 23, 2026.
_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE
- 6 -
Case 3:16-cr-00286-D Document 978 Filed 03/23/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID <pageID>