1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : 

 : Case No. 2:18-cr-075(2)

 Plaintiff, : 

 : CHIEF JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY 

 v. : 

 : 

NICHOLAS D. GLASSBURN, : 

 : 

 Defendant. : 

 

OPINION & ORDER 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 This matter is before the Court on Defendant Nicholas D. Glassburn’s pro se Emergency 

Motion for Reconsideration on His Previous Motion for Compassionate Release. (ECF No. 198). 

Also before the Court is a Motion for Sentence Reduction Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 

3582(c)(1)(A)(i), which was filed by Mr. Glassburn’s CJA-appointed attorney. (ECF No. 201). 

The Government filed a Response in Opposition. (ECF No. 202). For the reasons that follow, both 

motions are DENIED. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Mr. Glassburn is serving a prison term following his 2019 convictions for Conspiracy to 

Possess with the Intent to Distribute and to Distribute Controlled Substances within 1,000 Feet of 

a Public Elementary School, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846; and Possession of a Firearm by a 

Prohibited Person, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Mr. Glassburn was sentenced on March 

14, 2019 to serve 48 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release. (ECF 

No. 154). He is currently being held at FCI Morgantown but has been approved to transfer to the 

Case: 2:18-cr-00075-ALM Doc #: 203 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 1 of 6 PAGEID #: 944
2 

Alvis House on February 24, 2021. (ECF No. 194, Attach. B). Mr. Glassburn is scheduled to be 

released on July 25, 2021. (ECF No. 195). 

On July 21, 2020, Mr. Glassburn filed a Motion for Reduction in Sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(1)(A). (ECF No. 185). On September 8, 2020, this Court denied Mr. Glassburn’s motion 

(the “Denial Order”). (ECF No. 193). Specifically, this Court found that Mr. Glassburn had not 

met his burden in showing that he no longer poses a danger to the community and concluded that 

the § 3553(a) factors counseled against his early release. (Id. at 4−5). Mr. Glassburn then submitted 

an Amendment of Supporting Documentation and Facts to Defendant’s Motion for Compassionate 

Release (“Amendment of Supporting Documentation” or “Supporting Documentation”), which 

was docketed approximately nine days after the Court issued the Denial Order. (ECF No. 194). 

This Court construed the Supporting Documentation as a Motion for Reconsideration and denied 

it because Mr. Glassburn did not show that the Court had made a clear error of law in the Denial 

Order. (ECF NO. 195). 

On December 10, 2020, Mr. Glassburn filed an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of 

his previous Motion for Compassionate Release. (ECF No. 198). His CJA-appointed counsel, Mr. 

Joseph Edwards, also filed a Motion for Compassionate Release on January 19, 2021. (ECF No. 

201). The Government responded in opposition on February 2, 2021. (ECF No. 202). This matter 

is now ripe for the Court’s review. 

III. LAW & ANALYSIS 

A. Emergency Motion for Reconsideration 

Mr. Glassburn included three attachments to his Amendment of Supporting 

Documentation: (1) a “Male Pattern Risk Score”; (2) a letter indicating that he is to be released to 

the residential community program, the Alvis House, on February 24, 2021; and (3) a Sentencing 

Case: 2:18-cr-00075-ALM Doc #: 203 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 2 of 6 PAGEID #: 945
3 

Monitoring Computation Data Sheet reflecting his home detention eligibility. (Id.). Mr. Glassburn 

also provided additional details about COVID-19 in his present place of incarceration. (Id.). This 

Court treated the Supporting Documentation as a motion for reconsideration because “what he 

[sought was] for this Court to reconsider its September 8, 2020 decision denying his Motion for 

Compassionate Release.” (Id. at fn. 1). 

Mr. Glassburn argues that the Court erred in treating the Supporting Documentation he 

submitted as a motion for reconsideration. He contends that he submitted the filing to this Court 

on September 8, 2020—the same day that the Denial Order was issued. (ECF No. 198 at 2). Upon 

further inspection, this Court notes that the Clerk’s Office time-stamped the Supporting 

Documentation on September 8, 2020 but did not docket it until September 17, 2020. (ECF No. 

194 at 1). The Court therefore acknowledges that the Supporting Documentation did not constitute 

a motion for reconsideration but rather was an untimely supplement to his original motion for 

compassionate release. This relabeling, however, amounts to a distinction without a difference. 

Regardless of how the Court construes the Supporting Documentation, the Court’s holding in the 

Denial Order remains the same. 

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), a court will reconsider its own prior decision 

“if the moving party demonstrates: (1) a clear error of law; (2) newly discovered evidence that was 

not previously available to the parties; or (3) an intervening change in controlling law." Owner 

Operator Indep. Drivers Ass'n, Inc. v. Arctic Express, Inc., 288 F. Supp. 2d 895, 900 (S.D. Ohio 

2003).' Courts may also alter or amend a judgment when necessary "to prevent manifest injustice." 

GenCorp., Inc. v. Am. Int'l Underwriters, 178 F.3d 804, 834 (6th Cir. 1999). Reconsideration due 

to a finding of manifest injustice or a clear error of law requires “unique circumstances, such as 

complete failure to address an issue or claim” or “superseding factual scenarios.” McQueen v. 

Case: 2:18-cr-00075-ALM Doc #: 203 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 3 of 6 PAGEID #: 946
4 

Comm’r of IRS, No. 2:15-CV-2777, 2016 WL 4702373, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 22, 2016); 

McWhorter v. ELSEA, Inc., No. 2:00-cv-473, 2006 WL 3483964, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 30, 2006) 

(citing Collison v. Int 7 Chem. Workers Union, Local217, 34 F.3d233,236 (4th Cir. 1994)). 

The Court’s treatment of the Supporting Documents as a motion for reconsideration rather 

than as a supplement to Mr. Glassburn’s motion for compassionate release is not a clear error of 

law. First, some of the supplemental information that Mr. Glassburn submitted pertained to his 

health conditions and instances of COVID-19 at his current institution. This information does not 

show that the Court either failed to consider an issue or present superseding factual circumstances 

because the Court found in its Denial Order that Mr. Glassburn’s health conditions constituted an 

extraordinary and compelling reason that could justify his release. (ECF No. 193 at 3). Second, 

prior to Mr. Glassburn’s submission of the Supporting Documentation, this Court both had access 

to and considered the Male Pattern Risk score, the letter confirming his placement at the Alvis 

House, and the Sentencing Monitoring Computation Data Sheet when it issued its Denial Order. 

The information these documents present do not constitute superseding factual circumstances or a 

missed issue that the Court should have considered, had it considered the Supporting Documents 

a supplement rather than a motion for reconsideration. Nor do they alter this Court’s assessment 

that Mr. Glassburn’s early release could place the community at risk, given his conviction for 

illegal possession of firearms. Indeed, this Court fully considered each issue relevant to making a 

compassionate release determination in its Denial Order. For these reasons, the Court DENIES

Mr. Glassburn’s Emergency Motion for Reconsideration [#198]. 

B. Motion for Compassionate Release 

Mr. Glassburn’s counsel, Mr. Edwards, also filed a Motion for Sentence Reduction 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). (ECF No. 201). In considering this motion, the Court does 

Case: 2:18-cr-00075-ALM Doc #: 203 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 4 of 6 PAGEID #: 947
5 

not revisit whether Mr. Glassburn exhausted his administrative rights or whether his health issues 

raise an extraordinary and compelling reason to justify his early release. The Court previously 

ruled on these issues in Mr. Glassburn’s favor in the Denial Order. At issue here is whether Mr. 

Glassburn, through Mr. Edwards, has demonstrated that he no longer poses a danger to his 

community. 

Mr. Edwards points to a few factors in support of his contention that Mr. Glassburn does 

not pose any risk to the community. Primarily, he emphasizes that Mr. Glassburn has maintained 

two jobs throughout his time of incarceration, has completed the R.D.A.P. program and taken 

A.C.E. classes while at FCI Morgantown, and has arranged three employment opportunities for 

when he is released. Mr. Edwards also cites Mr. Glassburn’s strong desire to rebuild his 

relationship with his partner and four children and to care for his elderly parents and their property. 

For these reasons, he asks the Court to release him on home confinement rather than have him 

transfer to the Alvis House. 

The Court commends Mr. Glassburn for securing post-release employment, planning to 

strengthen his familial relationships, and aspiring to assist his parents. These facts, however, do 

not change the Court’s determination that Mr. Glassburn could pose a risk to the community due 

to his conviction for illegal possession of firearms. When officers searched Mr. Glassburn’s home 

in connection with the crimes underlying his current incarceration, they found 13 firearms and a 

bulletproof vest. The Court has serious concerns about the danger Mr. Glassburn could pose if 

were released from detention early. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that the safety of the public will best be served by Mr. 

Glassburn’s fulfillment of his original sentence. Mr. Glassburn’s Motion for Compassionate 

Release is therefore DENIED. 

Case: 2:18-cr-00075-ALM Doc #: 203 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 5 of 6 PAGEID #: 948
6 

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons set for the above, this Court DENIES Mr. Glassburn’s Emergency Motion 

for Reconsideration [#198] and his Motion for Compassionate Release [#201]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 

 ALGENON L. MARBLEY, CHIEF JUDGE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DATED: February 16, 2021 

Case: 2:18-cr-00075-ALM Doc #: 203 Filed: 02/16/21 Page: 6 of 6 PAGEID #: 949