Court filing

Motion to Modify Conditions of Release

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming
Filed	2026-08-24

U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming · No. 1:22-cr-00023 · Doc. 70 · 2026-08-24 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 1 of 9

Christyne M. Martens WSB #7-5044
Assistant United States Attorney
District of Wyoming
P.O. Box 22211
Casper, WY 82602
307-261-5434
christyne.martens@usdoj.gov

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Criminal No. 22-CR-23-SWS

PAUL D. McCOWN,

Defendant.

UNITED STATES’ MOTION TO MODIFY DEFENDANT’S CONDITIONS OF
SUPERVISED RELEASE

A review of McCown’s employment information shows that he affirmatively misled an

employer to gain access to financial accounts and sensitive personal information. Therefore, the

United States believes this matter should be set for a modification hearing.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

McCown used a combination of his small business, a gin distillery, and his position as

Chief Financial Officer at the Wyoming Catholic College in Lander, Wyoming to commit over 15

million dollars in fraud. (Doc. 1). As a result, he pleaded guilty to seven counts of wire fraud.

(Doc. 5). A presentence investigation report was prepared. (Doc. 12). That original report

recommended the following special condition of supervised release:
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 2 of 9

The defendant shall not work as a business manager or bookkeeper or hold any
position of employment in which he has access to bank accounts, payroll systems,
financial records, or the personal identifiers of any individuals.

(Id. at 22) (recommended condition 6). McCown responded that, in order to support his family in

the future, he requested that this condition be clarified so “that he may be fully involved in

operating or managing a family-owned business.” (Doc. 18 at 4).

On July 8, 2022, McCown appeared before this court for sentencing. (Doc. 40). At

sentencing, this court addressed the special conditions of supervised release. (Sent. Tr. at 109-10).

The court acknowledged his request and ordered:

in regards to those conditions, I would modify paragraph 73, sub paragraph 6 to
provide that Mr. McCown shall not work as a business manager or bookkeeper or
hold any position of employment in which he has sole access to bank accounts.

What I mean by that is, is that he shall not be the signatory on an account by and of
himself that would be sufficient to negotiate or to deposit or distribute funds and
that there should be co-signatures on any account that he is on.

And he shall also provide Probation and Parole with access to any and all business
records and accounts that he is a signatory on or participant in.

In terms of personal identifiers, I would provide that, again, he shall not have
independent access to that but may have access jointly with someone else and under
the eye of that individual.

I would also provide that, again, he shall give access to Probation at any time upon
request to verify he is not improperly using or accessing any of that information.

(Id. at 110-11). At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing, this court sentenced him to 63 months

in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release. (Id. at 109).

This court’s amended judgement was filed on July 20, 2022. (Doc. 44). The amended

judgement incorporated this court’s oral modification of McCown’s special conditions of

supervised release:

The defendant shall not work as a business manager or bookkeeper or hold any
position of employment in which he has sole access to bank accounts, payroll

2
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 3 of 9

systems, financial records, or the personal identifiers of any individuals; however,
he may perform these positions and/or duties if supervised by a business partner.
He shall not be a signatory on any business account without a co-signatory and shall
not be in a position to deposit or distribute funds with respect to any business
account without supervision by a business partner or co-signatory. He shall allow
the U.S. Probation Officer access to any and all business records and permit the
U.S. Probation Officer to review any business accounts upon which the defendant
is a signatory.

(Doc. 44 at 4).

McCown was placed on supervised release in approximately March 2025. Federal Bureau

of Prisons Inmate Locator.1 McCown is currently supervised in California. However, jurisdiction

of this matter was not transferred to California and remains with this court.

On April 13, 2026, the Defendant filed a pro se Motion for Early Termination of

Supervision in which he requested that this court reduce his term of supervised release. (Doc. 54).

As is the normal course with requests to reduce or terminate supervision, District of Wyoming

U.S. Probation Officer Brett Bohlender began an inquiry into McCown’s performance on

supervised release so that US probation could make a well-founded recommendation to the court.

That inquiry began with gathering information from McCown’s supervising officer in

California. From that officer, PO Bohlender learned that McCown had recently been employed

and terminated by Bioray, a supplement company based in California.2 As part of McCown’s

supervision, he signed a general release for “employment records including but not limited to dates

of employment, work performance, and reasons of termination.”

PO Bohlender spoke with a representative of Bioray about obtaining records. But Bioray

was not willing to rely on the general release signed by McCown to provide records. McCown had

1
Available at: https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited May 27, 2026).
2
Available at: https://www.bioray.com/pages/about (last visited May 27, 2026).
3
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 4 of 9

made threats to sue Bioray3 and it was otherwise concerned with liability stemming from the

release of information protected by California law without formal legal process. Thus, Bioray

requested that probation obtain a subpoena to compel production of documents related to

McCown’s employment.

At the same time, McCown’s California supervising probation officer reported that

McCown has been compliant with the terms of his supervision. However, that officer came to that

conclusion without records from Bioray. Further, it is the understanding of the United States that

the California supervising probation officer’s assessment is based on McCown’s self-reported

information. Importantly, the California supervising probation officer has not taken any steps to

independently verify the information McCown reported about his recent termination.

As a result of these circumstances, the United States requested a subpoena from this court

to obtain McCown’s employment records from Bioray. (Doc. 58). This court found the information

was probably relevant, probably admissible, and reasonably specific. (Doc. 60). Therefore, it

granted the subpoena. (Id.). Bioray promptly complied with the subpoena by providing the

required information to the clerk of court. (Doc. 62). The clerk of court provided the information

to the United States. (Id.). The United States, in turn, provided the information to U.S. Probation.

II. This court should modify McCown’s terms of supervision.

A review of McCown’s employment information shows that he affirmatively misled

Bioray about his history and qualifications when he obtained employment with the company. For

example, his resume claimed that he operated Sweetwater Spirits Craft Distillery from March 2018

to June 2022, and that he had “scaled a craft spirits brand from concept to $10M+ in top-line

3
McCown has since sued Bioray. Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Dkt. No. 30-
2026-01566626-CU-WY-CJC.
4
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 5 of 9

revenue with distribution in multi-state markets.” (Doc. 64-1 at 1 [resume]). However, McCown

began looking for investors for his gin distillery in late 2019 but never undertook any meaningful

operations. (Doc. 12 at 4-6). In fact, he never received a liquor license and never sold a single

bottle of gin. (Id. at 6). Instead, he used the existence of the corporation as a key means to carry

out the wire fraud scheme to which he pleaded guilty. (Id. 4-9). Thus, the only way he could claim

that he generated revenue from a distillery on his resume would be to count his criminal fraud

proceeds. And even then, the other statements regarding the distillery are false. (Doc. 12 at 4-9).

Likewise, he claimed to successfully lead Big 10 Consulting from June 2022 to present.

But this court sentenced him to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in July 2022, and he

was placed on supervision in March 2025. Claiming that he formed a successful consulting

company and delivered results to health care related clients from federal prison is specious.

It is not a crime to omit information from a resume or even lie to get a job interview. Nor

does it violate the specific terms of McCown’s supervised release. However, McCown’s lies and

omissions resulted in him starting work as the Chief of Staff for Bioray. (Doc. 64-2 [December 12,

2025, Offer Letter]). As chief of staff, McCown had access to the CEO’s email, password

keys/manager, and personal and company banking credentials. (Doc. 64-3 [Access Breakdown]).

He also had access to the sensitive personal identifying information of other Bioray employees.

(Id.). Bioray even obtained an American Express card in McCown’s name. (Doc. 64-4 [American

Express Card]).

This is precisely the kind of access this court intended to prohibit when it modified

McCown’s special conditions of supervised release at sentencing. This court prohibited McCown

from having the authority “that would be sufficient to negotiate or to deposit or distribute funds”

on his own without the approval of a co-signatory. (Sent. Tr. at 110). It also required supervision

5
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 6 of 9

by a “business partner” or “co-signatory” on McCown’s representation he wished to work in a

family-owned business. (Doc. 44 at 4; Doc. 18 at 4). This condition requires direct supervision on

a transaction-by-transaction basis. But when McCown obtained greater access—such as banking

credentials and a credit card—he obtained authority to spend money without direct supervision of

a business partner or co-signatory. And he obtained that kind of authority by lying. Obtaining this

access is a violation of the terms of McCown’s supervision.

That violation may or may not be actionable. McCown claims that he reviewed his potential

employment with Bioray with his supervising California probation officer, who gave him

approval. (Attachment 5 [April 6, 2026, Letter]). Without more information regarding precisely

what representations McCown made to his supervising California probation officer about the

requirements of the position, there is not likely enough information to revoke McCown’s

supervision. If the supervising probation officer misunderstood the terms of supervision that this

court imposed, McCown’s supervision should not be revoked for that mistake. Nonetheless,

McCown was at sentencing and heard this court’s explanation of the terms of his supervised

release, so he knew what this court meant. While his deceitful behavior with Bioray is not

actionable on its own, he knew better. His behavior demonstrates criminal thinking and a return to

the kind of conduct that resulted in approximately $15 million dollars in fraud.

Regardless of whether a basis to revoke McCown’s supervised release can ultimately be

developed, this court should act.

This court has the authority to “modify, reduce, or enlarge the conditions of supervised

release, at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release . . . .”

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2). It is not necessary for this court to find any changed circumstances before

modifying the terms of supervised release. United States v. Begay, 631 F.3d 1169, 1172 (10th Cir.

6
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 7 of 9

2011). The only prerequisite to a modification is that this court consider “the factors set forth in

section 3553(a)(1) [nature and circumstances of the offense], (a)(2)(B) [deterrence to criminal

conduct], (a)(2)(C) [protection of the public], (a)(2)(D) [defendant’s correctional needs], (a)(4)

[available sentences], (a)(5) [Sentencing Commission’s’ policy statements], (a)(6) [sentencing

disparities], and (a)(7) [restitution].” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e); Begay, 631 F.3d at 1172-73. Unless

McCown waives a hearing, this court must hold one before modifying his terms of supervision.

Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c).

Here, McCown’s behavior shows that his terms of supervised release should be modified

to clarify the level of supervision required for his access to sensitive information in the course of

his employment and to warn potential employers about his criminal history and the requirements

of his supervision.

Special conditions of supervised release that prohibit a defendant from “engaging in a

specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the

conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession

only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances” are specifically authorized by 18 U.S.C.

§ 3563(b)(5) and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). See also U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5. When imposing an occupational

restriction, a district court must find:

(1) a reasonably direct relationship existed between the defendant's occupation,
business, or profession and the conduct relevant to the offense of conviction; and

(2) imposition of such a restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the public
because there is reason to believe that, absent such restriction, the defendant will
continue to engage in unlawful conduct similar to that for which the defendant was
convicted.

United States v. Williams, 757 F’Appx. 680, 682-83 (10th Cir. 2018).

7
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 8 of 9

This standard is met here. McCown used his self-employment and his employment in a

managerial role at the Wyoming Catholic College to facilitate his fraud. Therefore, there is a direct

relationship between his crimes of conviction and his occupation. His behavior shows that further

restrictions are necessary to protect the public.

As originally proposed, McCown’s terms of supervision would have prohibited all work

as a business manager or bookkeeper and all access to bank accounts, payroll systems, financial

records, or the personal identifiers of any individuals. (Doc. 12 at 22). While that could be justified

here, the United States does not believe a total ban on any managerial work is necessary. Instead,

it proposes the current condition be replaced with the following:

The defendant shall notify any prospective employer, business partner, client,
contractor, fiduciary, or other third party with whom the defendant seeks to engage
in employment, self-employment, volunteer work, or any position involving
financial responsibilities, access to funds, financial records, personal identifying
information, or positions of trust, of the nature and circumstances of the defendant’s
underlying offense(s) and requirements of his supervised release prior to
commencing such activity. The defendant shall provide proof of such notification
to the probation officer upon request and shall permit the probation officer to verify
that the required disclosure has been made. The defendant shall not commence
such employment or activity until the required notification has occurred and the
probation officer has been informed of the notification.

The defendant shall not have direct or indirect access to, control over, or authority
regarding any business or organizational bank account, credit card, payroll system,
financial management system, accounting records, financial records, or personal
identifying information of any individual. The defendant shall not serve as a
signatory, authorized user, custodian, or person with authority to initiate, approve,
transfer, withdraw, deposit, distribute, disburse, spend, or otherwise controls funds
on behalf of any business, organization, or third party. The defendant shall not
occupy any position that permits unsupervised access to customer, employee,
client, or vendor financial information or personal identifiers, including Social
Security numbers, dates of birth, account numbers, or other sensitive identifying
data. He shall allow the U.S. Probation Officer access to any and all business
records and permit the U.S. Probation Officer to review any business information
to which the defendant has access.

8
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document 70 Filed 08/24/26 Page 9 of 9

III. Conclusion.

McCown affirmatively misled an employer to gain access to financial accounts and

sensitive personal information. Because of his behavior, this court should modify the terms of his

supervised release to ensure his compliance and protect the public. The United States requests a

hearing in the event that McCown does not waive a hearing on the proposed modifications.

DATED this 24th day of August, 2026.

Respectfully submitted,

DARIN D. SMITH
United States Attorney

By: /s/ Christyne M. Martens
CHRISTYNE M. MARTENS
Assistant United States Attorney

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on the 24th day of August, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of

the foregoing United States’ Motion to Modify Defendant’s Terms of Supervised Release upon

the following by depositing the same, postage prepaid, in the United States mail, addressed to:

Paul D. McCown
122 Finch
Lake Forest, CA 92630

/s/ Heidi Mason
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE

File and source

File: 70-motion-to-modify-conditions-of-release.pdf
Size: 213,953 bytes
SHA-256: 5ce730ce15ec19828361a42bbe443057a5c1402f912043db230207f0ed01e379
Our copy: 70-motion-to-modify-conditions-of-release.pdf
Original: No public link identified.