USA v. Bratton

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	PLAINTIFF
v. 	CASE NO. 4:08-CR-00330-BSM-1
DONALD BRATTON, JR.
Reg. No. 25484–009 	DEFENDANT
ORDER
Donald Bratton’s pro se motion for compassionate release [Doc. No. 71] is denied
because there are not extraordinary and compelling circumstances to warrant early release.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
Bratton pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, and was sentenced as
an armed career criminal to 211 months imprisonment. Doc. Nos. 29 and 38. Bratton now
requests compassionate release based on (1) family circumstances; (2) specifically the need
to care for his mother and father; (3) his living conditions in prison during the COVID-19
pandemic; (4) his contention that his sentence is overly harsh; and (5) rehabilitation. His
request is denied for four reasons.
First, while sympathetic to the situation of Bratton’s parents, Bratton does not provide
sufficient evidence to support his claim that his parents are incapacitated or that he is the only
available caregiver. See United States v. Mousa, No. 16-CR-104, WL 1693787, at *3 (D.
Minn. June 17, 2025) (finding insufficient evidence to determine whether parents were
incapacitated 	without 	“detailed 	medical 	records, 	social 	services 	records, 	or 	birth
certificates”); see also United States v. Gonzalez, No. 17-CR-60223, 2021 WL 4066897, at
Case 4:08-cr-00330-BSM Document 75 Filed 12/02/25 Page 1 of 2

*5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 7, 2021) (families of incarcerated individuals must “make necessary and
inconvenient life adjustments during that individual’s incarceration”). Further, it is not clear
how Bratton would be able to care for his parents, as he claims that upon release he would
be living with his fiancée and working as a painter. See Mot. Comp. Release, at 17–18 and
32. Second, the prison conditions Bratton complains of are not grounds for compassionate
release. Third, Bratton’s argument that his sentence was overly harsh is rejected because
Bratton’s sentence was—and still is—appropriate given the nature of his crime and his
criminal history. Fourth, Rehabilitation alone is not enough to warrant a sentence reduction.
28 U.S.C. § 994(t).
Finally, even assuming Bratton has established extraordinary and compelling
circumstances, his motion would still be denied because he is a danger to the community and
the section 3553(a) factors do not weigh in favor of granting compassionate release. 	See
United States v. Rodd, 966 F.3d 740, 747–48 (8th Cir. 2020) (upholding district court’s
denial of compassionate release when the district court concluded that the section 3553(a)
factors weighed against granting compassionate release, regardless of whether the defendant
had demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons).
IT IS SO ORDERED this 2nd day of December, 2025.
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Case 4:08-cr-00330-BSM Document 75 Filed 12/02/25 Page 2 of 2