1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 15-cr-20145 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

MICHAEL RAY GLESEN, 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________________________________________________/ 

ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT REQUEST FOR COUNSEL (ECF No. 68) 

 Defendant Michael Ray Glesen is currently incarcerated at FCI Milan. On June 30, 

2020, Glesen filed a Request for Counsel so that he may move for compassionate release 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). (See Request for Counsel, ECF No. 68, PageID.742.) 

According to Gleson, “I qualify [for compassionate release] on a number of factors and I 

would like [counsel] to review my situation with me.” (Id.) 

Under Section 3582(c)(1)(A), a defendant may not file a motion for compassionate 

release until “after the defendant has fully exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a 

failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a motion on the defendant’s behalf or the lapse of 

30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of the defendant’s facility, 

whichever is earlier.” The exhaustion requirement in Section 3582(c)(1)(A) is 

“mandatory” and is not subject to any “judge-made exceptions.” United States v. Alam, 

960 F.3d 831, 833–36 (6th Cir. 2020). 

Case 2:15-cr-20145-MFL-APP ECF No. 71 filed 07/21/20 PageID.746 Page 1 of 3
2 

Glesen has not given the Court enough information to determine whether he has 

satisfied this exhaustion requirement. Therefore, the Court DIRECTS Glesen to file a 

supplement to his request that informs the Court whether he has submitted a written request 

for compassionate release to the warden at FCI Milan. If Glesen has submitted a written 

request for compassionate release to the warden at FCI Milan, then Glesen shall also inform 

the Court of the date on which he submitted the request, whether the warden responded to 

the request, and the date of the warden’s response (if any). 

If either (1) Glesen has not submitted a request for compassionate release to the 

warden, or (2) Gleson has submitted such a request but 30 days have not lapsed since the 

warden received his request, then the Court will dismiss his current filing (ECF No. 68) 

without prejudice. In that event, Glesen would be permitted to file a motion seeking 

compassionate release (or the appointment of an attorney to review such a motion) upon 

exhausting his remedies. 

Additionally, Gleson has not given the Court enough information to determine 

whether he is otherwise qualified for compassionate release. Accordingly, the Court 

DIRECTS Gleson to use his supplement to also inform the Court why he believes he 

qualifies for compassionate release. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: July 21, 2020 

 

Case 2:15-cr-20145-MFL-APP ECF No. 71 filed 07/21/20 PageID.747 Page 2 of 3
3 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the parties 

and/or counsel of record on July 21, 2020, by electronic means and/or ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9761 

Case 2:15-cr-20145-MFL-APP ECF No. 71 filed 07/21/20 PageID.748 Page 3 of 3