USA v. Glasper

Page 1 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RAYMOND GLASPER,
Defendant.
Case No. 3:11-CR-30053-NJR-1
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROSENSTENGEL, District Judge:
Pending before the Court are two Emergency Motions for Compassionate Release
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) filed by Defendant Raymond Glasper. (Docs. 99,
107). In the first motion, Glasper asserts that his health is declining and there is a disparity
between his sentence and other sentences for the same conduct because his sentence was
erroneously enhanced through the application of § 4B1.5. (Doc. 99). In his second motion,
Glasper 	adds that 	he 	has now been 	diagnosed 	with 	“hyperglycemia, 	essentially
hypertension and hypolakemia.” (Doc. 107). After the Government’s Motion to Dismiss
for lack of exhaustion was denied (see Doc. 105), the Government filed a timely response
in opposition. (Doc. 106). For the following reasons, Glasper’s motions are denied.
B ACKGROUND
On March 5, 2012, Glasper was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment after he
pleaded guilty, pursuant to a written plea agreement, to one count of child pornography
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2251(a). (Docs. 39, 59, 61). The conduct for which Glasper was
charged occurred between May and October 2008. After Glasper was arrested for an
Case 3:11-cr-30053-NJR Document 108 Filed 01/20/26 Page 1 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 2 of 6
unrelated traffic offense, officers found a micro SD card in his center console that
contained videos of two minor females, one of whom was nude and standing in the
bathtub being videotaped, and the other Glasper surreptitiously recorded as she entered
and exited the shower. (Doc. 52). One of the minors was Glasper’s eight-year-old niece.
(Doc. 32). In the video, Glasper can be heard telling the victim to pose while standing
nude in the bathtub. Glasper also directed her to show her feet and zoomed in on her
breasts, feet, and genitalia. In a voluntary, videotaped interview, Glasper admitting
having a foot fetish.
The other minor was Glasper’s own 13-year-old daughter. Glasper hid a camera
behind a towel with a hole cut in it and recorded her while she was nude, getting in and
out of the shower. There were also numerous videos of Glasper zooming in on his
daughter’s butt or feet while she was engaged in regular activities, as well as videos of
Glasper sneaking into her room at night, with a flashlight, so he could videotape her butt
and feet while she was asleep. In some of the videos, Glasper licked and kissed his
daughter’s feet.
Glasper first filed a pro se Motion for Compassionate Release on April 28, 2020,
which his attorney later supplemented on August 24, 2020. (Docs. 65, 70). Glasper
requested that his sentence be reduced to time served due to his recent COVID-19
diagnosis combined with his uncontrolled diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension,
polyneuropathy, and asthma. (Id.). The Court denied the motion, even in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic, because there was evidence that Glasper refused treatment for his
diabetes, his asthma was well controlled, his hypertension was not severe, and his
Case 3:11-cr-30053-NJR Document 108 Filed 01/20/26 Page 2 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 3 of 6
condition was stable. (Doc. 76). In evaluating the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, the Court
stated:
Glasper preyed on two minor females, used his status as a family member
to gain access, and took pornographic photos of them. Based on this
conduct, the Court cannot guarantee that Glasper would not be a danger to
the safety of any other person or the community if he were released.
Moreover, Glasper has served only a portion of his 20-year sentence.
Reducing his sentence to time-served would fail to reflect the seriousness
of his crime, promote respect for the law, or provide just punishment for
the offense.
(Id.). The Court’s decision was affirmed on appeal by the Seventh Circuit. (Doc. 86).
With his current motions, Glasper reiterates his health problems, which he claims
the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is not adequately treating. He also claims his sentence is
disparately long when compared to similar offenders, and he points to his rehabilitation
and self-declared low risk of recidivism. (Docs. 99, 107).
DISCUSSION
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c), a district court “may not modify a term of imprisonment
once it has been imposed” unless an exception applies. See Dillon v. United States, 560 U.S.
817, 824 (2010). One exception allows a court to grant an inmate compassionate release if
the inmate meets certain requirements. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A). A federal prisoner
may bring a motion for compassionate release after exhausting the administrative
remedies provided by the BOP. Id.
The Seventh Circuit has described a two-step process for evaluating a prisoner’s
motion for compassionate release. First, “the prisoner must identify an ‘extraordinary
and compelling’ reason warranting a sentence reduction.” United States v. Thacker, 4 F.4th
Case 3:11-cr-30053-NJR Document 108 Filed 01/20/26 Page 3 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 4 of 6
569, 576 (7th Cir. 2021). Second, “[u]pon a finding that the prisoner has supplied such a
reason,” a court “consider[s] any applicable sentencing factors in § 3553(a) as part of
determining what sentencing reduction to award the prisoner.” Id.
The Sentencing Commission has issued a policy statement that applies to
compassionate release motions filed by defendants and provides that “extraordinary and
compelling reasons” exist if the defendant is suffering from a “serious physical or medical
condition . . . that substantially diminishes the ability of the defendant to provide self-
care within the environment of a correctional facility and from which he or she is not
expected to recover.” U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 (b)(1)(B).
Here, the Court finds no extraordinary or compelling circumstances exist that
would warrant compassionate release. While Glasper complains of his health issues, the
Government has supplied medical record evidence demonstrating that Glasper is non-
compliant with his medications, including his insulin, and is not dieting and exercising
as directed. (Doc. 106-1). He has been prescribed Metformin, Glipizide, and Ozempic for
his diabetes. (Docs. 106-1, 106-4). Additionally, his asthma is well controlled and his
hypertension is regularly monitored and controlled. (Docs. 106-1, 106-3). Thus, the Court
finds that Glasper is not suffering from any medical condition that substantially
diminishes his ability to provide self-care within the prison. See United States v. Hernandez,
No. 1:05-CR-00485-6, 2025 WL 2916991, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 14, 2025) (finding high blood
pressure and high cholesterol do not meet the criteria of § 1B1.13 (b)(1)(B) because they
do 	not 	amount 	to 	a 	“serious 	physical 	or 	medical 	condition” 	that 	“substantially
diminishes” the inmate’s ability to take care of himself, much less a terminal illness or a
Case 3:11-cr-30053-NJR Document 108 Filed 01/20/26 Page 4 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 5 of 6
medical condition that requires long-term or specialized care that is not being provided);
United States v. Mendoza, 2025 WL 1323705, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 7, 2025) (finding diabetes,
high blood pressure, high cholesterol, arthritis, sleep apnea, and back pain do not
constitute an extraordinary and compelling reason when medical records show the
prison is treating those conditions).
With regard to Glasper’s sentencing disparity argument based on the application
of an enhancement, the Seventh Circuit has previously found that a compassionate
release motion based on a sentencing disparity is “a challenge to a length of the prison
sentence” 	appropriately 	heard 	on 	direct 	appeal 	or 	in 	a 	§ 	2255 	motion, 	not 	on
compassionate release. United States v. O’Neill, 735 F. Supp. 3d 994, 1024 (E.D. Wis. 2024)
(quoting United States v. Arojojoye, 806 F. App’x 475, 478 (7th Cir. 2020)). Thus, that claim
is not cognizable here.
Finally, with regard to Glasper’s self-declared rehabilitation, it is well settled that
rehabilitation alone is not enough to be eligible for compassionate release. United States
v. Peoples, 41 F.4th 837, 842 (7th Cir. 2022).
Even 	if 	Glasper 	had 	presented 	extraordinary 	and 	compelling 	reasons 	for
compassionate release, the Court would still deny his motion based on the § 3553(a)
factors. As the Court previously explained in denying Glasper’s prior motion, Glasper
preyed on two minor females, used his status as a family member to gain access, and took
pornographic photos of them. With his young niece, he convinced her to show him her
nude body and feet, acting like it was normal to do so. With his teenage daughter, he hid
a camera behind a hole in a towel while she showered, he took videos of her butt, and he
Case 3:11-cr-30053-NJR Document 108 Filed 01/20/26 Page 5 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>

Page 6 of 6
filmed himself licking and kissing her feet. Based on this conduct, the Court cannot
guarantee that Glasper would not be a danger to the safety of any other person or the
community if he were released. The Court agrees with the Government that Glasper
should serve every day of his sentence to reflect the seriousness of his crime, promote
respect for the law, and provide just punishment for the offense.
For these reasons, the Emergency Motions for Compassionate Release pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) filed by Defendant Raymond Glasper (Docs. 99, 107) are
DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: 	January 20, 2026
___________________________
NANCY J. ROSENSTENGEL
United States District Judge
Case 3:11-cr-30053-NJR Document 108 Filed 01/20/26 Page 6 of 6 Page ID
#<pageID>