Glenn v. USA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
JERRY D. GLENN,
Petitioner,
vs.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Criminal No. 18-00062 HG-01
Civil No. 25-00429 HG-RT
ORDER DENYING PETITIONER JERRY D. GLENN’S MOTION TO VACATE
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF NO. 135)
and
DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
and
DENYING DEFENDANT JERRY D. GLENN’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE
RELEASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST HIS
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES (ECF No. 135)
On September 30, 2019, Petitioner Jerry D. Glenn was
sentenced to 200 months imprisonment following his guilty plea to
one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess 50 grams or
more of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1),
841(b)(1)(A), and 846.
Petitioner’s Judgment became final on February 19, 2020.
More than five years later, on October 6, 2025, Petitioner
Glenn has filed a Motion seeking to vacate his sentence pursuant
1
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 1 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Petitioner’s Motion is untimely and without
merit.
Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion (ECF No. 135) is DENIED.
A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
In addition, Petitioner Glenn’s Motion seeks compassionate
release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). Petitioner failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies with the Bureau of Prisons
prior to filing his request for compassionate release.
Petitioner’s Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No. 135)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
I. Indictment, Guilty Plea, And Sentencing
On March 13, 2018, at the age of 51, Petitioner Jerry D.
Glenn was arrested in Sacramento, California. (Presentence
Report ¶ 2, ECF No. 80).
On May 4, 2018, Petitioner made his initial appearance in
Honolulu, Hawaii, and was ordered detained pending trial. (ECF
No. 19).
On May 10, 2018, the grand jury returned an Indictment
charging Petitioner Jerry Glenn and a co-defendant with various
crimes related to drug trafficking. Petitioner was charged in
four counts:
2
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 2 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

Count 1: Defendant knowingly and intentionally conspired to
distribute, 50 grams or more of methamphetamine,
to wit: approximately 5,078 grams of
methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts of
isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846,
841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A).
Count 3: On or about November 23, 2016, Defendant knowingly
and intentionally distributed 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, to wit: approximately 447 grams
of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts
of isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A).
Count 6: On or about January 17, 2017, Defendant knowingly
and intentionally distributed 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, to wit: approximately 443 grams
of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts
of isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 841(b)(1)(A).
Count 7: On or about January 18, 2017, Defendant knowingly
and intentionally distributed 50 grams or more of
methamphetamine, to wit: approximately 427 grams
of methamphetamine, its salts, isomers, and salts
of isomers, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1)
and 841(b)(1)(A).
(Indictment, ECF No. 25).
On February 20, 2019, Petitioner entered into a plea
agreement and pled guilty to Count 1 of the Indictment. (ECF
Nos. 53, 55).
On September 24, 2019, Petitioner appeared for sentencing.
(ECF No. 85).
Petitioner’s base offense level was calculated at 38 based
on the drug quantity table under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c)(1).
(Presentence Report at ¶ 48, ECF No. 80). Petitioner was
responsible for 5.078 kilograms of “ice.” (Id.)
3
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 3 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

Petitioner received a 2-level reduction for acceptance of
responsibility and a 1-level reduction for timely notifying the
Government of his intention to plead guilty. (Id. at ¶¶ 55-56).
Petitioner’s total offense level was 35. (Id. at ¶ 57).
Petitioner’s Criminal History Computation was based on his
extensive criminal history that included 17 adult convictions.
(Id. at ¶¶ 61-77). Petitioner’s criminal convictions resulted in
a subtotal criminal history score of 27. (Id. at ¶ 78). In
addition, Petitioner received 2 additional criminal history
points because Petitioner committed the instant offense while
Defendant was on probation for a conviction for Grand Theft from
San Joaquin County Superior Court in Case No. CR 2016-0001386.
(Id. at ¶ 79). As a result Petitioner’s total criminal history
score was 29. (Id. at ¶ 80). Petitioner was therefore placed in
Criminal History Category VI based on his total criminal history
score of 29. (Id.)
Petitioner’s guideline range was 292 to 365 months
imprisonment. (Id.) He was sentenced to 200 months
imprisonment, and ten years of supervised release. (Judgment,
ECF No. 86).
On September 30, 2019, Petitioner filed a Notice of Appeal
to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (ECF No. 88).
On November 20, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
granted Petitioner’s Motion for Dismissal of his appeal and
4
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 4 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

issued the mandate. (ECF No. 97).
Petitioner did not seek review by the United States Supreme
Court.
On May 19, 2020, Petitioner, pro se, filed a motion entitled
“Motion for Compassionate Release (CR) and or Reduction in
Sentence (RIS) Under Title 18 § 4205 and 3582.” (ECF No. 105).
On May 21, 2020, the Court denied Petitioner’s Motion for
failure to meet the statutory exhaustion requirement. (ECF No.
106). The Court identified additional issues Petitioner should
address if he chose to file a new motion after meeting the
exhaustion requirement. (Id.)
On July 23, 2020, Petitioner, through counsel, filed a
motion entitled, “Motion for Reduction in Sentence (Compassionate
Release).” (ECF No. 109).
On October 26, 2020, the Court issued an ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO REDUCE SENTENCE UNDER THE FIRST
STEP ACT (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE).” (ECF No. 117).
On October 6, 2025, Petitioner filed a document entitled
“Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” (ECF No. 135).
The Motion also requests Compassionate Release pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). (Id.)
On October 7, 2025, the Court issued a briefing schedule.
(ECF No. 136).
On October 14, 2025, Defendant filed a document entitled,
5
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 5 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

“MOTION FOR THE TWO POINT REDUCTION.” (ECF No. 138).
Petitioner’s Motion for Two Point Reduction is addressed in
a separate order.
On November 5, 2025, the Government filed a Motion for
Extension of Time to File Response to Petitioner’s 2255 Motion.
(ECF No. 140).
On November 6, 2025, the Court granted the Government’s
Motion for Extension of Time. (ECF No. 141).
On November 21, 2025, the Government filed its Opposition to
Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion. (ECF No. 143).
Petitioner did not file a Reply to the Government’s
Opposition.
The Court elects to decide the matter without a hearing
pursuant to District of Hawaii Local Rule 7.1(c).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”),
28 U.S.C. § 2255, provides federal prisoners with a right of
action to challenge a sentence if it was imposed in violation of
the Constitution or laws of the United States, the court was
without jurisdiction to impose such a sentence, the sentence was
in excess of the maximum authorized by law, or the sentence is
otherwise subject to collateral attack. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(a). A
prisoner may file a motion (“2255 Motion”) to vacate, set aside,
6
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 6 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

or correct a sentence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
The scope of collateral attack of a sentence is limited, and
does not encompass all claimed errors in conviction and
sentencing.
28 U.S.C. § 2255 provides a one-year limitation period for
filing a petition for habeas corpus relief. The limitation
period for a Section 2255 Motion runs from the date on which a
judgment of conviction becomes final, unless an alternative start
date is established by a condition set forth in the statute. 28
U.S.C. § 2255(f).
ANALYSIS
Petitioner Jerry D. Glenn has filed a Motion to Vacate, Set
Aside or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No.
135). Petitioner challenges his sentence of 200 months
imprisonment, asserting his sentence should be lowered based on
purported Amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines
in 2025.
I. Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion is Untimely
Section 2255 Motions are subject to a one-year statute of
limitations that begins running from the date the judgment became
final. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
On September 30, 2019, Judgment was entered. (ECF No. 86).
7
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 7 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

On November 20, 2019, Petitioner’s appeal was dismissed and
the mandate was issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Petitioner did not seek review from the United States
Supreme Court. Petitioner’s Judgment became final and the one-
year limitations period for seeking habeas relief pursuant to
Section 2255 began to run when Petitioner’s time for seeking a
writ of certiorari expired on or about February 19, 2020. See
Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522, 532 (2003).
AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations for Petitioner to
file a Section 2255 Motion expired on or about February 19, 2021.
On October 6, 2025, Petitioner filed his Section 2255
Motion. (ECF No. 135). His Motion was filed more than five
years after his Judgment became final and well after the one-year
time limit imposed by AEDPA.
Petitioner argues that his Motion should be deemed timely
filed because it is based on alleged amendments to the United
States Sentencing Guidelines in 2025.
Amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines do not
provide a basis to toll AEDPA’s statute of limitations or
“restart the clock” to file a Section 2255 Motion. See United
States v. Andrade, 2017 WL 35498, *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2017)
(collecting cases).
Petitioner has not shown that he is entitled to equitable
tolling of AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. See United
8
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 8 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

States v. Buckles, 647 F.3d 883, 889 (9th Cir. 2011).
Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion is untimely, and he is not
entitled to habeas relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f).
II. Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion Is Without Merit
Even if Petitioner’s 2255 Motion was timely, in the
interests of thoroughness and finality, the Court addresses
Petitioner’s claim that his sentence should be reduced pursuant
to the 2025 Amendments to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines.
As the Government explains in its Opposition, none of the
2025 Amendments apply to alter Defendant’s sentence. Petitioner
claims that a purported “Amendment 212” applies to his case, but
no such amendment exists.
In addition, Petitioner argues that there was a change to
the leadership role enhancement in the Sentencing Guidelines.
Petitioner’s sentence was not enhanced based on a leadership
role. Any amendment to the leadership enhancement in the United
States Sentencing Guidelines would not alter Petitioner’s
sentencing guidelines.
The Court has issued a different order where it addresses
Petitioner’s separate Motion requesting a reduction in sentence
pursuant to Amendment 821 to the United States Sentencing
Guidelines that went into effect on November 1, 2023. As
9
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 9 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

explained in the Order, Amendment 821 did not lower Petitioner’s
sentencing guidelines and there is no basis to reduce
Petitioner’s sentence pursuant to Amendment 821.
Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion is both untimely and
without merit.
Petitioner’s Section 2255 Motion (ECF No. 135) is DENIED.
Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability
because he has not made a substantial showing that he was
deprived of a constitutional right. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 483–84 (2000).
A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
III. Motions For Compassionate Release Must Be Administratively
Exhausted With The Bureau Of Prisons
The First Step Act of 2018 allows a defendant to file a
motion in district court for a reduction in sentence based on
compassionate release after the defendant has first
administratively exhausted his request with the Bureau of
Prisons. 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A).
A defendant seeking a reduction of his sentence based on
compassionate release bears the burden to establish that he has
exhausted his administrative remedies before filing such a motion
with the Court. See United States v. De Aquino, 2025 WL 615346,
*2 (D. Ore. Feb. 25, 2025).
Section 3582(c)(1)(A)’s administrative exhaustion
10
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 10 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

requirement is a “mandatory claim-processing rule” and may not be
excused. United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1282 (9th Cir.
2021).
Petitioner’s October 6, 2025 Motion appears to request
compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). The
filing, however, does not provide any evidence that he
administratively exhausted his remedies with the Bureau of
Prisons before seeking relief from this Court. Administrative
exhaustion is mandatory.
Petitioner’s Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No. 135)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
11
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 11 of 12
PageID.<pageID>

CONCLUSION
Petitioner Jerry D. Glenn’s Motion to Vacate Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF No. 135) is DENIED.
A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED.
Petitioner’s Motion for Compassionate Release (ECF No. 135)
is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to exhaust his
administrative remedies.
This Clerk of Court is ORDERED to enter Judgment in favor of
the Respondent United States of America and CLOSE THE CIVIL CASE
No. 25-00429 HG-RT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 12, 2026, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Jerry D. Glenn v. United States of America; Cr. No. 18-00062 HG-
01; Cv. No. 25-00429 HG-RT; ORDER DENYING PETITIONER JERRY D.
GLENN’S MOTION TO VACATE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (ECF NO.
135) and DENYING A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY and DENYING
DEFENDANT JERRY D. GLENN’S MOTION FOR COMPASSIONATE RELEASE
WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO EXHAUST HIS ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES (ECF No. 135)
12
Case 1:25-cv-00429-HG-RT Document 3 Filed 01/12/26 Page 12 of 12
PageID.<pageID>