Court filing

Defendant's Reply in Support of Motion to Modify Conditions of Supervised Release — United States v. Gregory Scott Keough

No. 9:23-cr-80154-DMM · Doc. 74 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025 Page 1 of 7

Patrick J. Egan (Pro Hac Vice)
Ian Comisky
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
Two Commerce Square
2001 Market Street, Suite 1700
Philadelphia, PA 10103
pegan@foxrothschild.com
icomisky@foxrothschild.com
Tel: 215.299.2000
Fax: 215.299.2150
Attorneys for Defendant
Gregory Scott Keough

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 9:23-CR-80154-DMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,
v.

GREGORY SCOTT KEOUGH,

Defendant.
_________________________________

DEFENDANT’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE

Defendant Gregory Scott Keough (“Mr. Keough”), by and through undersigned counsel,

respectfully submits this Reply in Support of Motion to Modify Conditions of Supervised Release,

and in support thereof states as follows:

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Keough wants to move on with his life and reunite with his family in El Salvador.

There is nothing left for him in the United States. But his supervised release conditions, as currently

structured, will forestall efforts to piece back together a meaningful life.

The Government does not object to the removal of one such condition—the Drug Test
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025 Page 2 of 7

Condition.1 Mr. Keough therefore requests the Court remove or deem satisfied the Drug Test

Condition. The Government insists, however, that the Reporting Conditions are necessary, and

that rendering Mr. Keough non-reporting is inappropriate and unwarranted. The Government’s

position fails to account for Mr. Keough’s demonstrated history of acceptance of responsibility,

rehabilitation and accountability, as well as his unique personal circumstances making relocation

to El Salvador not only appropriate, but necessary.

Mr. Keough therefore requests the Court modify his supervised release conditions to

remove or deem satisfied the Drug Test Condition, and alter the Reporting Conditions in a manner

that renders Mr. Keough non-reporting so that he may be reunited with his family in El Salvador.

ARGUMENT

The Court has discretion 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). Given this inherent power, the Court can, and should, modify Mr. Keough’s

supervised release conditions to alter the Reporting Conditions and render him non-reporting.

Additionally, Mr. Keough requests the Court remove or deem satisfied the Drug Test Condition;

a request the Government does not oppose.

A. Non-Reporting Status is Feasible, and Mr. Keough’s Request is Not the Equivalent of
Early Termination.

Mr. Keough’s request for non-reporting status is not all that uncommon. In fact, it would

operate under procedures the United States Probation Office is well-familiar with. Non-citizen

releasees are often rendered non-reporting and returned to their country of origin. See 18 U.S.C. §

3583(d) (authorizing courts to order surrendering to immigration authorities as a condition of

1
Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the definitions ascribed to them in Defendant’s
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Modify Conditions of Supervised Release (the
“Opening Memorandum”).

-2-
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025 Page 3 of 7

supervised release). In such cases, supervised release conditions are only reimposed and enforced

if and when the individual lawfully returns to the United States. U.S. Courts, Overview of

Probation and Supervised Release Conditions, Chapter 3, XVI (last visited July 22, 2024),

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/probation-and-pretrial-services/post-conviction-

supervision/overview-probation-and-supervised-release-conditions (stating that when a defendant

is deported as a condition of supervised release “[t]he probation officer identifies the defendant’s

case file as ‘inactive’ and ceases supervision” but once “a defendant reenters the United

States…and reports to the probation office as required, the probation officer begins active

supervision….”).

Mr. Keough, though a United States citizen, 2 does not presently intend on returning to the

United States during the term of his supervised release, or at any point thereafter. But like non-

citizens, oversight of Mr. Keough when his home is elsewhere is unwarranted and a waste of

government resources. These resources are better spent on individuals who intend to remain in the

country and pose an actual threat to the public at large. Should Mr. Keough return to the United

States while his supervised release term remains unfinished, he will take the appropriate steps to

remain compliant with the conditions remaining in effect.

The Court can, and should, modify Mr. Keough’s supervised release conditions to render

him non-reporting, thus allowing him to reunite permanently with his family in El Salvador.

B. Modification of Mr. Keough’s Supervised Release Conditions to Render Him Non-
Reporting is Warranted.

The relevant factors in determining whether a modification of supervised release conditions

is warranted are (a) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics

2
Mr. Keough has been an authorized legal resident in El Salvador for around ten years. Keough
Decl. ¶ 6.

-3-
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025 Page 4 of 7

of the defendant; (b) the need for deterrence, specific and general; (c) the need for public

protection; and (d) the uniformity of sentences among defendants. See Gov’t Br. at 4 (citing United

States v. Reagan, 162 F. App’x 912, 914 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a),

3583(e)(1))).

Mr. Keough was a first-time criminal offender when he pled guilty to wire fraud and money

laundering. These crimes were isolated events for which Mr. Keough immediately took

responsibility by pleading guilty and fully satisfying his restitution obligations prior to his plea. In

prison, he was a model inmate, so much so that he was released early.

The need for deterrence in Mr. Keough’s case is minimal. Mr. Keough committed non-

violent, isolated crimes. Indeed, the most deterrent thing the Court could do is allow Mr. Keough

to relocate to El Salvador to reunite with his family. Numerous studies confirm that meaningful

contact with friends and family dramatically reduces recidivism. See Grant Duwe & Byron R.

Johnson, The Effects of Prison Visits from Community Volunteers on Offender Recidivism, 96

Prison J. 279, 296 (March 2016) (finding that regular visits from “community volunteers” such as

clergy and mentors “reduced the risk of recidivism by 25% for rearrest, 20% for reconviction, and

31% for new offense reincarceration.”); Jordan S. Donohue, Barriers to Successful Re-Entry,

U.N.L.V. Cntr. For Crime and Justic Policy (Dec. 2024),

https://www.unlv.edu/sites/default/files/media/document/2024-12/r6-Reentry.pdf (“When

compared to persons released into their family’s home, recidivism risks were 35% higher for

persons beginning reentry without housing.”); Leah Wong, Research roundup: The positive

impacts of family contact for incarcerated people and their families, Prison Policy Initiative (Dec.

21, 2021), https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2021/12/21/family_contact/ (summarizing multiple

studies, and showing 13-25% reductions in recidivism among those receiving regular family visits

-4-
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025 Page 5 of 7

in prison). So powerful are these familial bonds in reducing recidivism that many federal criminal

laws incorporate provisions allowing for family reunification. See 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) (instructing

the Bureau of Prisons to consider placing an inmate “in a facility within 500 driving miles of” the

inmate’s primary residence); Treaty Transfers, Fed. Bureau of Prisons,

https://www.bop.gov/inmates/custody_and_care/treaty_transfers.jsp (last visited July 22, 2025)

(noting that the Treaty Transfer Program, 18 U.S.C. § 4100 et seq., is designed to allow prisoners

“to serve their sentence closer to home and facilitate their reentry”).

As indicated in his Opening Memorandum, Mr. Keough and his family rely on each other

heavily for strength and guidance. Now more than ever, the family needs to be together. Reuniting

the family in El Salvador will not only be a great benefit to the Keough family, but will

dramatically reduce the likelihood of recidivism, if any, that Mr. Keough presents.

Nor is there a great need for public protection in this case. The whole purpose of Mr.

Keough’s Motion is to remove him from the general United States public. Upon his return to El

Salvador, Mr. Keough has no present intention of returning to the United States for any reason.

Moreover, he intends to return to El Salvador and obtain employment through his in-laws’ real

estate ventures, consulting and helping them manage and develop properties in El Salvador. This

work has no ties whatsoever to the United States, nor could it from a practical standpoint.

The Government’s qualm with Mr. Keough’s Motion is totally backward-looking. They

appear primarily concerned with Mr. Keough’s supposed “pattern of improper financial conduct,”

which, they say, will continue once he returns to El Salvador. See Gov’t Br. at 5-6. In broader

support of this contention, the Government cites to Mr. Keough’s conduct in this case and his prior

-5-
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025 Page 6 of 7

role in the “financial technology companies” Creditmovil and DeFi Money Market. 3 See id.

But when looking ahead, this narrative falls apart. For starters, Creditmovil is an El

Salvadoran company in which Mr. Keough currently owns no interest. And Creditmovil does not

now, nor has it ever, had operations in the United States. Mr. Keough otherwise has no prospects

in the “financial technology” industry as it stands. He intends to return to El Salvador and seek

employment with his in-laws’ real estate ventures. These ventures own no property and do not

conduct business in the United States. Mr. Keough’s past with companies such as Creditmovil and

DeFi Money Market is therefore unmoving when considering modification. His future lies with

his El Salvadoran family’s real estate businesses that do not touch or concern the United States at

all.

Moreover, the Government asserts that general deterrence is necessary to “encourage

white-collar defendants to move abroad after being released from imprisonment to avoid servicing

their terms of supervised release.” See Gov’t Br. at 5. But such an assertion simply underscores

the uniqueness of Mr. Keough’s circumstances. He has deep, lengthy, and intimate ties to El

Salvador. See, e.g., Keough Decl. ¶¶ 6 (stating that Mr. Keough has been an authorized legal

resident of El Salvador for the last ten years), 8 (stating that the Keough family resided full-time

in El Salvador for at least two years, and that the family owns no real estate in the United States);

PSR 18 ¶ 77 (stating that Mr. Keough’s wife and children are El Salvadoran citizens). The

insinuation that a future white-collar defendant would spend years in another country building a

life and fathering five children as a cover in the event they are eventually placed on supervised

release is absurd. There is accordingly no palpable need for deterrence, specific or general, in the

3
The civil SEC matter related to DeFi Money Market was settled in August 2021. See In re
Blockchain Credit Partners d/b/a DeFi Money Market, et al., File No. 3-20453 (SEC Aug. 6,
2021), available at https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2021/33-10961.pdf.

-6-
Case 9:23-cr-80154-DMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/24/2025 Page 7 of 7

case of Mr. Keough.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Keough simply wants to rebuild his life in the presence of his family. But the Reporting

Conditions are preventing him from doing so by keeping him stateside while his family suffers

without him in El Salvador. See Opening Memo. at 3-4. Rendering Mr. Keough non-reporting is

a valid and administratively feasible supervised release status. It is also warranted given Mr.

Keough’s unique personal circumstances. As such, the Court should modify Mr. Keough’s

supervised release to render him non-reporting, thus allowing him to relocate permanently to El

Salvador with his family. 4

Dated: July 24, 2025 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

/s/ Patrick J. Egan
Patrick J. Egan (Pro Hac Vice)
Ian Comisky
Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street
Suite 1700
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Tel: 215.299.2000
Fax: 215.299.2150
pegan@foxrothschild.com
icomisky@foxrothschild.com
Attorneys for Defendant
Gregory Scott Keough

4
As previously stated, the Government does not oppose Mr. Keough’s request to deem satisfied
or remove the Drug Test Condition. Mr. Keough respectfully requests the Court do so.

-7-

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flsd.653009.74.0.pdf
Size: 209,054 bytes
SHA-256: ee3f66c9e70aef8ff295df39119b2a21c30cac81afec409103be844be918a401
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flsd.653009.74.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)