United States of America v. Nash et al

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Cag

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

B: 1:13-cr-00467-DCN Doc #: 352 Filed: 09/04/26 1 of 3. PagelD #: <pagelD>

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) CASE NO. 1:13-CR-00467-1
)
Plaintiff, )
) JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
v. )
)
DARNELL NASH, ) MEMORANDUM OF
) OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant. ) [Resolving ECF No. 344]

The Court considers Defendant Darnell Nash’s tenth Motion for Compassionate Release.
See ECF No. 344. Despite Defendant's pending direct appeal of the amended judgment, see
United States v. Nash, No. 25-3702 (6th Cir. filed Sept. 3, 2025), the Court has jurisdiction to

under Fed. R. Crim. P. 37(a)(2).

The Government opposes the Motion and urges denial because: (1) Defendant failed to

exhaust administrative remedies under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) and separately failed to

exhaust the Bureau of Prison’s Administrative Remedy Program for her time-credit claim, which

belongs in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, not a compassionate release motion; (2) Defendant’s USP
Coleman claims are moot because she is now incarcerated at FCI Butner; (3) the record in

Aguilar Contreras v. Trump, No. 5:25-CV-00396 (M.D. Fla. Filed June 20, 2025) contradicts

Defendant’s retaliation theory because time-credit denial predates her February 2026 testimony;
(4) Defendant’s February 2026 sexual-assault/retaliation allegations are unsubstantiated or
disproven by Bureau of Prison records, video, and investigative findings; and (5) the 18 U.S.C. §
3553(a) factors weigh against release given the scope of Defendant’s underlying fraud scheme.
ECF No. 350 at PageID #: 2673.

Before a criminal defendant can file a motion for compassionate release in a district
court, she must first exhaust administrative remedies by presenting the request to the institution’s

warden and either (a) fully appealing any denial through the Bureau of Prisons or (b) waiting

(1:13-CR-00467-1)
2
until thirty days after the warden's receipt of the request without a response. See 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A). Defendant has not satisfied these requirements with respect to the February and
March 2026 assaults she alleges. ECF No. 344 at PageID ##: 2563–67. Failure to exhaust
administrative remedies requires dismissal without prejudice. See United States v. Alam, 960
F.3d 831, 834 (6th Cir. 2020).
Exhibits C, E, and F show that Defendant sent Trust Fund Limited Inmate Computer
System (“TRULINCS”) messages to USP Coleman’s associate warden and Prison Rape
Elimination Act (“PREA”) compliance manager on April 13 and 14, 2026, just two weeks before
she filed the instant motion. ECF Nos. 344-3, 344–5, 344–6. Those messages are not formal
administrative requests under the BOP's Administrative Remedy Program. Rather, they are
inmate correspondence making legal arguments regarding PREA retaliation and First Step Act
(“FSA”) credits, arguments the Court considered and rejected. ECF Nos. 284, 290, 332, 343.
Defendant provides no evidence that she submitted a formal compassionate release
request on September 24, 2025 to the warden regarding the new alleged assaults or that thirty
days elapsed without a response. The correspondence contained in Exhibits E and F predates the
alleged incidents entirely and relates to prior complaints. ECF Nos. 344-5, 344-6. The single
warden response in the record—dated November 7, 2025 (ECF No. 344-6 at PageID #: 2620)—
addresses Defendant’s September 2025 PREA complaints, not the new alleged assaults. The
Court cannot presume that the warden did not respond when Petitioner provides no evidence of
the request having ever been made. As a result, the Motion for Compassionate Release is denied
without prejudice for failure to exhaust procedural remedies. See ECF No. 344.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
September 4, 2026 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Case: 1:13-cr-00467-DCN Doc #: 352 Filed: 09/04/26 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

Cag

BP: 1:13-cr-00467-DCN Doc #: 352 Filed: 09/04/26 3 of 3. PagelD #: <pagelD>

(1:13-CR-00467-1)