Order on Motion for Early Termination of Supervision and Order on Motion to Appoint Counsel

Summary

An order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming in United States v. Paul D. McCown, Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS, dated August 21, 2026, denying McCown's motions for early termination of supervised release and for appointment of counsel. The order recounts that McCown pled guilty in March of 2022 to seven counts of wire fraud involving over $15 million, was sentenced to 63 months, and began a three year term of supervised release on March 21, 2025. It notes almost $14,000,000 paid in restitution with $1,670,456.20 outstanding, but finds that McCown used a falsified resume to become chief of staff at a company and was let go after two weeks. The court calls the government's request to modify release conditions improper because it was not made by motion. The signature block names Scott W. Skavdahl.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document69_ Filed 08/24/26 Page1of7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING

9:20 am, 8/24/26

Margaret Botkins
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Clerk of Court

Plaintiff,
VS. Case No. 22-CR-23

PAUL D. MCCOWN,

Defendant,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS FOR EARLY
TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE AND APPOINTMENT OF
COUNSEL

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Paul D. McCown’s Motion for
Early Termination of Supervised Release and the United States’ Request for Modification
of McCown’s supervised release conditions. (ECF No. 54, 64). The United States
submitted an objection to Defendant’s early termination motion which included a motion
for modification of the terms of Defendant’s supervised release. (ECF No. 64 at 7-9). Mr.
McCown’s probation officer also submitted an update on his conduct and progress while
under supervision. (ECF No. 56). That report notes Defendant’s probation officer objects
to Defendant’s early release from supervision at this time. (/d. at 2). McCown has also filed
a Motion to Appoint Counsel. (ECF No. 65). Having examined the motions and the
government’s objection, reviewed the record herein, and considered the relevant factors

under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a), the Court finds the motion for early termination
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document69_ Filed 08/24/26 Page 2of7

of supervision and the motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 54, ECF No. 65) should be
denied.
BACKGROUND

In March of 2022 Defendant pled guilty to seven counts of wire fraud involving
over $15 million that he swindled out of various government and investment entities. (ECF
No. 23). In July of 2022, Defendant was sentenced to 63 months for each count, to be
served concurrently, followed by 3 years of supervised release. (ECF No 44 at 1-3). On
March 21, 2025 Defendant was released from Bureau of Prison custody and began his three
year term of supervised release. (See

https://www.bop.gov/mobile/find_inmate/byname.jsp#inmate_ results last visited August

21, 2026).
Due to the nature of his offense, one of the conditions of Defendant’s special

conditions of supervised release required:

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 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.

(Id. at 4). Defendant now seeks early termination of his supervised release. (ECF No. 54).
The United States not only opposes his early termination, but seeks modification of his

special conditions to expressly require Defendant to disclose his convictions and the
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document69 _ Filed 08/24/26 Page3of7

requirements of his supervised release to various third parties, including potential
employers and business partners. (ECF No. 64). Defendan
As set forth in the United States’ response and attachments thereto, subsequent to his
placement on supervised release, McCown used a falsified resume to obtain employment
with a company as their chief of staff. (ECF No. 64 at 5, ECF No. 56 at 1, see ECF No. 64-
1). While employed at this company, he had access to company banking credentials and
obtained a company American Express card with his name on it. (ECF No. 64 at 6, see also
64-3, 64-4) He was let go after two weeks due to “background issues.” (ECF No. 56 at 1).
Defendant has failed to otherwise obtain full-time employment while on supervised
release. (ECF No. 56 at 1).
I. Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release
DISCUSSION
“Congress intended supervised release to assist individuals in their transition to
community life. Supervised release fulfills rehabilitative ends, distinct from those served
by incarceration.” United States v. Johnson, 529 U.S. 53, 59 (2000) (citing S. Rep. No. 98—
225, at 124). Title 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) gives the Court authority to terminate supervised
release early. It provides in relevant part:
The court may, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1),
(a)(2)(B), (ay(2)(C), (a)(2)(D), (a)(4), (a)(S), (a)(6), and (a)(7)—
(1) terminate a term of supervised release and discharge the defendant
released at any time after the expiration of one year of supervised
release ... if it is satisfied that such action is warranted by the conduct

of the defendant released and the interest of justice.

18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document69_ Filed 08/24/26 Page4of7

Considering the factors identified in §§ 3583(e) and 3553(a), the Court is not
satisfied at this time that terminating Defendant’s supervised release is warranted by his
conduct and the interests of justice. According to Defendant, Defendant has remained fully
compliant with his supervised release conditions, he has timely made restitution payments,
and he has regularly reported to U.S. Probation. (ECF No. 54 at 2). Defendant is currently
renting a home with his wife and children, is able to contribute financially towards food
and gas, and on occasion, rent and utilities, and to date, he has paid a total of almost
$14,000,000 in restitution, with an outstanding balance of $1,670,456.20. (ECF No. 56 at
1-2). These positive steps are encouraging.

That said, Defendant’s employment has been tenuous. The update provided by
Defendant’s probation officer notes Defendant has never maintained stable full-time
employment, and he is currently working on a part time basis as a Barista for the Coffee
Bean and Tea Leaf. (ECF No. 56 at 1).

Additionally, Defendant has informed his probation officer that he “is actively
pursuing high-level employment opportunities that may place him in positions of financial
trust, including potential access to bank accounts, payroll systems, financial records, or the
personal identifying information of others. . . . [S]Juch potential access presents a
heightened risk that warrants continued oversight.” (/d. at 2). Thus, Defendant’s probation
officer believes he could benefit from some continued supervision (id.), and the Court
agrees.

Moreover, the United States explains that Defendant affirmatively misled the

company he was briefly employed for two-weeks prior to being let go for background

4
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document69_ Filed 08/24/26 Page5of7

issues. (ECF No. 56 at 1, ECF No. 64 at 5). Specifically, he submitted a falsified resume
and claimed he had successfully led Big 10 Consulting from June 2022, while he was
incarcerated. (ECF No. 64 at 5, see ECF No. 64-1). As the United States rightly contends,
Defendant’s claims that he “formed a successful consulting company and delivered results
from federal prison is specious.” (/d.). As a result of his falsified resume, Defendant
McCown secured employment as Chief of Staff for a company, where he had access to
personal and company banking credentials, and a company provided American Express
card in McCown’s name. (/d. at 6, see also 64-3, 64-4). The United States contends
McCown’s “deceitful behavior with [company] . . . demonstrates criminal thinking and a
return to the kind of conduct that resulted in” McCown’s wire fraud conviction. This Court
certainly shares a concern.

In considering Defendant’s conduct on supervision as well as the various factors
under § 3553(a), including “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and
characteristics of the defendant,” the need “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal
conduct,” and the need “to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant,” the
Court finds continued supervision is necessary and of benefit to Defendant and termination
of supervised release is not warranted at this time. The positive steps Defendant has taken
are encouraging, but his apparent use of deception to secure employment shows he has not

escaped his criminal thinking patterns.
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document69_ Filed 08/24/26 Page 6of7

I. The Government’s Request to Modify the Conditions of Defendant’s
Supervised Release

The United States’ objection requests that this Court modify Defendant’s conditions
of supervised release. (See ECF No. 64 at 7-9). Specifically, the United States proposes
modification of Defendant’s supervised release conditions is required “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.” (See ECF No. 64 at 7).

However, “[a] party applying to the court for an order must do so by motion.” Fed.
R. Crim. Pro. R. 47(a). It is improper to request relief in a response or objection. U.S. v.
Margheim, 770 F.3d 1312, 1323, n. 6 (10th Cir. Oct. 29, 2014) (“Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 47 makes clear that any time a party ‘appl[ies] to the court for an order,’. . . he
‘must do so by motion.’); United States v. Samilton, 2023 WL 8634819, at *1 (W.D. Okla.
Dec. 13, 2023) (citing Fed. R. Crim. Pro. R. 47(a) (“A request to the court must be in the
form of a motion.”)); Williams v. United States, 2019 WL 2567336, at *1 (D. N.M. June
21, 2019) (citing Fed. R. Crim. Pro. R. 47(a) (“any request to the Court for an order
mandatorily must be made by motion.”)). The Government’s request to modify
Defendant’s supervised release conditions in their objection is improper. The United States
must follow the Federal Rules, and if they seek modification of Defendant’s conditions of

supervised release, they must do so by motion in compliance with Rule 47(a) and 32.1.
Case 1:22-cr-00023-SWS Document69 _ Filed 08/24/26 Page /7 of7

III. Motion for Appointment of Counsel

As to Defendant’s request for counsel, Defendant’s motion requests counsel to assist
him related to the government’s request to modify Defendant’s conditions of supervised
release. (ECF No. 65). Under Rule 32.1(c) Defendant is entitled to counsel. However,
because the government’s request to modify Defendant’s supervised release conditions is
improperly included in their response and denied, for those reasons set forth above. Thus,
at this time, Defendant’s motion to appoint counsel will be denied, without prejudice as
well. If the government files a Petition to Modify Defendant’s conditions of supervised
release, Defendant may renew his motion for appoint of counsel, and if eligible! Defendant
will be appointed counsel.

ORDER

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Early
Termination of Supervision (ECF No. 54) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel (ECF No.

65) is DENIED.

Dated this 21st day of August, 2026.

Scott W. Skavdahl /
United States District Judge

' During his underlying criminal proceedings Defendant did not submit any affidavit to establish his eligibility for
appointment of counsel because he had retained counsel. Retained counsel recently sought and was allowed to
withdraw. (ECF No. 66 and 68).

7


File and source

File

69-order-on-motion-for-early-termination-of-supervision-and-ord.pdf

Size

221,244 bytes

SHA-256

b9e31b97ad0d8693f218a1b90b89c15c7ba996e4da2afb5d3b1ecc85135c7c67

Our copy

69-order-on-motion-for-early-termination-of-supervision-and-ord.pdf

Original

No public link identified.