Response in Opposition by USA as to Gregory Scott Keough — USA v. Keough (Dkt. 73, S.D. Fla. No. 9:23-mj-08393, docketed in No. 9:23-cr-80154)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 9:23-cr-80154-DMM · Doc. 73 · 2025-07-18 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO.: 23-CR-80154-MIDDLEBROOKS 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
vs. 
 
GREGORY SCOTT KEOUGH, 
 
Defendant. 
_________________________________________/ 
 
RESPONSE IN PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO  
MODIFY CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE 
 
The United States of America, through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, 
hereby responds in partial opposition to defendant Gregory Scott Keough’s (Keough) Motion to 
Modify Conditions of Supervised Release (DE 70). Keough’s sentence included a total term of 
supervised release of three years. DE 60. Keough, who has not yet started his term of supervised 
release, seeks to modify his supervision in two ways: (1) to become non-reporting so that he can 
relocate to El Salvador and (2) to remove the drug testing condition. For the reasons that follow, 
the United States respectfully requests that the motion be denied in part, in that the Court deny 
Keough’s request for his supervision to be non-reporting. The United States does not object to the 
removal of Keough’s drug testing condition.  
I. 
BACKGROUND  
A. Offense Conduct 
From March 2020 through August 2020, Keough and his co-conspirator, Derek Acree, 
conspired to submit one fraudulent Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) application and three 
fraudulent Payment Protection Program (PPP) loan applications on behalf of companies they 
controlled together. Presentence Investigation Report (PSI) ¶¶ 5, 47. Keough also individually 
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 73   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2025   Page 1 of 8

2 
 
applied for and received two additional loans for companies he controlled and applied for at least 
one other loan that was denied. Id. at ¶ 47. In all, Keough was responsible for an intended loss 
amount of $2,049,105 and an actual loss of $1,922,355. Id. ¶ 47. 
B. Relevant Procedural History 
On November 13, 2023, Keough pled guilty to two counts of wire fraud, in violation of 
18 U.S.C. § 1343, and one count of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. PSI ¶ 1. 
In anticipation of sentencing, the United States Probation office calculated Keough’s guideline 
imprisonment range. DE 53. Based on his offenses of conviction, and a loss amount of $2,049,105, 
his adjusted offense level was determined to be 24. PSI ¶¶ 58-63. After receiving reductions for 
being a zero-point offender and acceptance of responsibility, his total offense level was calculated 
to be 19. Id. at ¶¶ 64-67. With zero criminal history points, his criminal history category was I. Id. 
at ¶ 70. Accordingly, Keough’s guideline imprisonment range was 30-37 months. Id. at ¶ 111.  
On February 8, 2024, Keough was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment and three years 
of supervised release. DE 60. He was also ordered to pay $1,922,355 in restitution, which was paid 
in full by the time of sentencing, and a $300 special assessment. Id. Keough was ordered to 
surrender for service of his sentence approximately six weeks later, on March 25, 2024. Id.  
Among other conditions, Keough’s terms of supervised release included mandatory 
conditions that he not commit another federal, state, or local crime, and that he submit to one drug 
test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter. Id. 
His terms of supervised release also included several standard conditions related to reporting to a 
United States probation officer to enable the officer to supervise his conduct and condition. Id.  
According to Supervising United States Probation Officer Scott Kirsche, Keough was 
released to a halfway house on or about May 20, 2025, approximately 14 months after surrendering 
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 73   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2025   Page 2 of 8

3 
 
for his sentence, and is currently serving the remainder of his sentence on home confinement in 
Wellington, Florida. Keough’s anticipated release date from Bureau of Prison custody is currently 
September 29, 2025. See https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited July 17, 2025).  
C. The Instant Motion  
On July 1, 2025, Keough filed the instant motion to modify his conditions of supervised 
release in two ways: (1) to become non-reporting so that he can relocate to El Salvador and (2) to 
remove the drug testing condition. DE 70. In support of his request for supervision to be non-
reporting, Keough cites future sentencing guideline amendments that, in part, underscore the 
rehabilitative purposes of supervised release. DE 70-1 at 5-8. He argues the reporting conditions 
of supervised release serve no purpose other than punishment because his wife and children live 
in El Salvador, he has employment opportunities there, and he purportedly has limited remaining 
ties to the United States. Id. at 8-11. In support of his request for removal of the drug testing 
condition, Keough argues that he does not have substance abuse issues and that he has nevertheless 
satisfied the drug testing condition based on his successful passing of three drug tests since his 
release to a halfway house. Id. at 11.  
II. 
ARGUMENT 
a. Keough’s request to modify his conditions of supervised release to be non-reporting 
and to permit relocation to El Salvador should be denied.  
This Court should deny Keough’s request to modify his conditions of supervised release to 
be non-reporting and to allow relocation to El Salvador. As an initial matter, Keough’s request to 
modify his term of supervision to be non-reporting is in effect asking the Court to terminate his 
term of supervised release before it begins. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1), a Court may 
terminate a term of supervised release early for a defendant who has served at least one year of his 
supervised release, where “such action is warranted by the conduct of the defendant released and 
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 73   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2025   Page 3 of 8

4 
 
the interest of justice.” Keough, who has not yet started his term of supervised release, is not 
eligible under Section 3583(e)(1) for his term of supervision to be terminated. And, even if he had 
satisfied the one-year requirement for termination of supervised release, termination of his 
supervised release would not be warranted by his conduct and the interests of justice. Indeed, early 
termination is only occasionally justified, as Section 3583 does not provide for early termination 
based solely on a defendant’s compliance with the terms of his supervision. See United States v. 
Reisner, No. 4:06-CR-077-SPM, 2008 WL 3896010, at *1 (N.D. Fla. Aug. 20, 2008) (denying 
motion for early termination in view of the defendant’s failure to “demonstrate exceptionally good 
behavior or other extraordinary circumstances sufficient to warrant early termination”); see also 
Karacsonyi v. United States, 152 F.3d 918, *1 (2d Cir. 1998). Because Keough’s request for non-
reporting supervised release is in effect requesting that this Court terminate his term of supervision 
before it even begins, and Keough is not yet eligible for termination of his term of supervised 
release, this Court should deny his request.  
In addition, Keough’s request to modify his term of supervised release to be non-reporting 
and to permit relocation to El Salvador is otherwise unwarranted after consideration of the 
applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. See 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e). Although it is true that one of the 
goals of supervised release is rehabilitation of the defendant, the nature and circumstances of the 
offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant, deterrence, public protection, and 
uniformity of sentences among defendants committing the same types of crimes are all also 
considerations related to supervised release. See United States v. Reagan, 162 Fed. Appx. 912, 914 
(11th Cir. 2006) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a), 3583(e)(1)).  
The nature and circumstances of Keough’s offense involve him submitting and/or causing 
the submission of multiple false EIDL and PPP loan applications, resulting in an intended loss of 
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 73   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2025   Page 4 of 8

5 
 
approximately $2,049,105 and an actual loss of $1,922,355. PSI ¶¶ 5-45; 47. It also involves 
Keough personally benefitting from the proceeds of these false applications and consuming much 
of the proceeds on himself and his family. PSI ¶¶ 37-38, 46. 
Importantly, the history and characteristics of Keough reveal that this financial misconduct 
was not an isolated incident. In 2021, one of the companies Keough co-owned with his co-
conspirator, doing business as DeFi Money Market, was shutdown based on an agreement with 
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), after the company sold more than $30,000,000 
worth of securities in unregistered offerings. PSI ¶ 95. While marketing the company, Keough and 
his co-conspirator misrepresented how the company was operated, failed to notify the investors of 
material facts, and falsely claimed the DeFi Money Market had bought car loans that they 
displayed on the company website when they had not. Id. As a result of this misconduct, Keough 
ultimately agreed to be jointly and severally liable in that case for a debt of more than $7.5 million 
in disgorgement and prejudgment interest. PSI ¶ 95.  
Keough’s pattern of improper financial conduct underscores the need for specific 
deterrence in this case. Modifying Keough’s supervised release to be non-reporting and permitting 
his move to El Salvador, after he served only 14 months incarcerated and four months on home 
confinement, would not adequately deter him from future criminal conduct. It would also be 
inadequate to deter others from committing future similar misconduct and would instead 
encourage white-collar defendants to move abroad after being released from imprisonment to 
avoid serving their terms of supervised release. The presence of a requirement to report to United 
States probation provides a strong incentive to a defendant like Keough to avoid committing future 
crimes.   
The reporting requirements also serve to protect the public from further crimes of the 
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 73   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2025   Page 5 of 8

6 
 
defendant. Notably, Keough’s motion states that he can return to the work he was doing in El 
Salvador prior to his plea. DE 70-1 at 10 (citing PSI ¶¶ 92, 101).1 According to the PSI, Keough 
was working at an El-Salvador based digital financial technology platform application company 
doing business as Credimovil, that he co-owned and operated, that provides loans based on the 
equity in the customer’s vehicle.2 PSI ¶ 94. This business appears at least partially similar to 
Keough’s business that resulted in him owing millions of dollars to the SEC for improper conduct 
(PSI ¶ 95), in that both businesses involved financial technology and car loans. Given Keough’s 
history of misrepresentations related to financial technology companies, and the fact that Keough’s 
residence in El Salvador would not inhibit his ability to conduct business and misconduct in the 
United States, Keough’s reporting requirements are necessary to protect the public from further 
crimes of the defendant.  
The undersigned has conferred with United States probation and understands they may be 
amendable to Keough’s request to move to El Salvador and to be non-reporting because Keough’s 
remaining conditions of release may not necessitate active monitoring. Instead, Supervising United 
States Probation Officer Scott Kirsche indicated that even if Keough’s conditions remain 
unchanged, he will likely be assigned to a low-risk probation officer and be required to submit 
monthly reports to probation without in-person reporting requirements. For the reasons already 
stated, the United States submits that such a reporting structure, which would require Keough to 
maintain living in the United States under supervision, is more appropriate than allowing Keough 
to be non-reporting from El Salvador, given the goals of supervised release.  
 
1 Keough cites ¶¶ 92 and 99 of the original PSI (DE 50), which are ¶¶ 92 and 101, respectively, of 
the final PSI cited in this response (DE 53).  
 
2 The PSI noted that the company is online based, and that the defendant continued to operate the 
business while in the United States. PSI ¶ 94. 
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 73   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2025   Page 6 of 8

7 
 
Although the undersigned sympathizes with the difficulties Keough’s wife and family are 
experiencing in El Salvador, supervised release serves important purposes other than 
rehabilitation, including deterrence and public protection. For all the reasons stated, an assessment 
of the applicable 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors shows that modifying Keough’s term of supervised 
release to be non-reporting and permitting him to move to El Salvador would not be appropriate. 
Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests the Court deny Keough’s request.  
b. The United States does not object to the removal of Keough’s drug testing 
condition.  
Given that Keough’s PSI indicated he poses a low risk of future substance abuse (¶ 127), 
and he has successfully passed three drug tests since being released to the halfway house, the 
United States does not object to the Court modifying his term of supervised release to remove this 
condition.  
III. 
CONCLUSION 
For the above stated reasons, the United States respectfully requests the Court deny in part 
Keough’s motion to modify his conditions of supervised release by denying his request to move 
to El Salvador and change his supervision to non-reporting. 
Respectfully submitted, 
 
HAYDEN P. O’BYRNE 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
 
 
 
By: 
s/ Katie Sadlo                
                                     
 
 
KATIE SADLO 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
 
 
 
 
Florida Bar No. 1026417 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 
Telephone: (561) 209-1043 
 
 
 
 
 
   Fax: (561) 805-9846 
 
 
 
 
 
   Katie.Sadlo@usdoj.gov 
 
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 73   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2025   Page 7 of 8

8 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 18, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing document 
with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
/s/ Katie Sadlo  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
KATIE SADLO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Assistant United States Attorney 
 
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM   Document 73   Entered on FLSD Docket 07/18/2025   Page 8 of 8

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.653009.73.0.pdf

Size

187,879 bytes

SHA-256

c6c64db11c6c5cf156abf1d98e1db1142c30eb2e0c1cd9e8c5db63b3aefad259

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.653009.73.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)