2:22-cr-00228-1 USA v. BETANCOURT
Case Summary
The United States prosecuted Betancourt in criminal case 2:22-cr-00228, with the docket reflecting a sentencing memorandum as the most recent substantive filing. The '-1' designation identifies Betancourt as the primary defendant in what may be a multi-defendant indictment. The case has reached the sentencing phase, meaning conviction — whether by plea or verdict — has already occurred. The sentencing memorandum, docket entry 104, likely addresses guidelines calculations, reducing factors, or the government's sentencing recommendation.
Latest development
2:22-cr-00215-1 USA v. Rambang
Verdict · April 20, 2026
A sentencing memorandum was filed in USA v. Rambang, Case No. 2:22-cr-00215-1, a related proceeding to USA v. Betancourt, Case No. 2:22-cr-00228-1. Sentencing memos are the last written word before a judge decides prison time — they argue for a specific sentence and frame how the court should weigh the defendant's conduct, history, and any cooperation.
description View filingKey Issues
- • Sentencing guidelines calculation and applicable range
- • Reducing or aggravating factors presented by parties
- • Nature of underlying criminal offense undetermined from record
- • Multi-defendant indictment structure
The Story So Far
Betancourt has been convicted — by plea or verdict — in federal criminal case 2:22-cr-00228-1, and the case is now at sentencing. The court has not yet scheduled the sentencing hearing on the public docket, but the parties are already filing.
On April 20, 2026, a sentencing memorandum was filed in USA v. Rambang, Case No. 2:22-cr-00215-1, a related proceeding.
The same date produced an undescribed 'other' filing in Betancourt's own docket. The parallel timing suggests coordinated sentencing activity across what appears to be a multi-defendant indictment — Betancourt carries the '-1' designation, marking him as the lead defendant.
Sentencing memoranda are where the real argument happens at this stage. The government uses them to press for a guidelines sentence or above, citing aggravating facts. Defense uses them to argue for a lower range — acceptance of responsibility, cooperation, personal history, or a challenge to how probation calculated the offense level.
Neither memo has been described in detail on the public docket, so the specific guidelines range and the parties' positions are not yet confirmed.
The underlying offense is not clear from the record. The multi-defendant structure and the case's filing in 2022 suggest a conspiracy charge of some kind, but that is not confirmed. What is confirmed: conviction is done, and the only question left is how long Betancourt serves.
Judge assignment is listed as pending. That is unusual at the sentencing phase and may reflect a clerical gap in the public docket rather than an actual vacancy on the case. The court is not identified in the available record, though the 2:22 docket prefix points to a federal district court's criminal division.
update What Changed This Week
receipt_long Source (filing) expand_more
Sentencing Memorandum ( 104
Open original open_in_newJuryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.
Case Timeline
2 events2:22-cr-00215-1 USA v. Rambang
A sentencing memorandum was filed in USA v. Rambang, Case No. 2:22-cr-00215-1, a related proceeding to USA v. Betancourt, Case No. 2:22-cr-00228-1. Sentencing memos are the last written word before a judge decides prison time — they argue for a specific sentence and frame how the court should weigh the defendant's conduct, history, and any cooperation.
2:22-cr-00228-1 USA v. BETANCOURT
A docket entry was filed in USA v. Betancourt, Case No. 2:22-cr-00228-1, a federal criminal matter. The filing is categorized as 'other' with no description provided, leaving the substance of the event unknown.
Press Coverage
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
2 outlets · 2 articles
Timeline events
2 records on file
Last updated
1 hour, 20 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.