UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 08-20669

REGINALD STATOM, 

Defendant.

_________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

On May 21, 2020, the court denied Defendant Reginald Statom’s “Emergency 

Motion to Reduce Sentence [U]nder [18 U.S.C. §] 3582(c)(1)(A) Compassionate 

Release.” (ECF No. 290.) In that order, the court explained that Defendant had not 

exhausted his administrative remedies and his circumstances were not “extraordinary 

and compelling.” (Id., PageID.2154-56.) The court further explained that Defendant’s 

continued detention does not present a risk of harm “so grave that it violates 

contemporary standards of decency.” Villegas v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, 709 F.3d 

563, 568 (6th Cir. 2013). (ECF No. 290, PageID.2156-58.) Defendant now requests that 

the court reconsider its order denying his motion to reduce sentence. (ECF No. 291.)

To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a party “must not only demonstrate a 

palpable defect by which the Court and the parties and other persons entitled to be 

heard on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting the defect will 

result in a different disposition of the case.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3); see also Indah v. 

U.S. Sec. & Exch. Comm’n, 661 F.3d 914, 924 (6th Cir. 2011). “A ‘palpable defect’ is a 

Case 2:08-cr-20669-RHC-MKM ECF No. 292 filed 07/23/20 PageID.2165 Page 1 of 3
2

defect which is obvious, clear, unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” Hawkins v. Genesys 

Health Sys., 704 F. Supp. 2d 688, 709 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (Borman, J.). The court will 

deny Defendant’s motion for reconsideration because he has not pointed to any 

palpable defect in the court’s order denying a reduction in sentence. E.D. Mich. LR

7.1(h)(3).

As the court explained in its order, Defendant can file a motion for 

compassionate release under the First Step Act of 2018 only “after [he] has fully 

exhausted all administrative rights to appeal a failure of the [BOP] to bring a motion on 

[his] behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such a request by the warden of 

[Defendant’s] facility, whichever is earlier.” 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The court 

determined Defendant has done neither; therefore, Defendant’s claim is not ripe. (ECF 

No. 290, PageID.2153-54.) The court further explained that even if the exhaustion 

requirement were waived, Defendant’s circumstances are not sufficiently “extraordinary 

and compelling” to justify compassionate release. (ECF No. 290, PageID.2154.) In his 

motion for reconsideration, Defendant states FCI Terre Haute has five active COVID-19 

cases and one confirmed death within its inmate population. (ECF No. 291,

PageID.2160.) The court acknowledged Defendant’s pre-existing conditions and 

determined that the BOP’s precautionary measures make the benefits of releasing 

Defendant into society speculative. (ECF No. 290, PageID.2158.) In his motion for 

reconsideration, Defendant fails to show that the court was “misled” or that the result 

would have been different if any “defect” existed. E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). The court is 

not persuaded by Defendant’s motion that alteration to its original order is necessary. 

Accordingly,

Case 2:08-cr-20669-RHC-MKM ECF No. 292 filed 07/23/20 PageID.2166 Page 2 of 3
3

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s “Motion for Reconsideration” (ECF No. 291) is 

DENIED.

s/Robert H. Cleland 

ROBERT H. CLELAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 23, 2020

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record 

on this date, July 23, 2020, by electronic and/or ordinary mail. 

s/Lisa Wagner 

Case Manager and Deputy Clerk

(810) 292-6522

S:\Cleland\Cleland\JUDGE'S DESK\C2 ORDERS\08-20669.STATOM.MotionforReconsideration.LEM.RMK.docx

Case 2:08-cr-20669-RHC-MKM ECF No. 292 filed 07/23/20 PageID.2167 Page 3 of 3