Order on Five Motions by Nathan Reardon — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 241)

Summary

Order, filed April 29, 2025 as Document 241, Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW, United States v. Nathan Reardon, District of Maine, resolving five motions filed by Nathan Reardon. It denies the Motion for Early Termination (ECF No. 239) and rejects removing the Computer and Internet Monitoring Program condition. It modifies Special Condition 6 to allow self-employment in the business of rental property ownership and management, with continuous employment by a disinterested third party. It denies the Motion for Joinder (ECF No. 237), the Motion for Return of Property (ECF No. 231), and the Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 232) without prejudice to a civil action. It is signed /s/ Lance E. Walker, Chief U.S. District Judge.

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

Cite this document

“Order on Five Motions by Nathan Reardon — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 241).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-d-me-no-1-21-cr-00061-dkt-241-dfe14a4ce2/, SHA-256 facb0f760445085ba2f0b9b2e71c5049515af50cfc2fa4016b7b5030795679d8.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 241 Filed 04/29/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
1489

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. ) No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW
)
NATHAN REARDON, )
)
Defendant )

ORDER

The matter is before the Court on five motions filed by Nathan Reardon. Two motions

challenge the terms and duration of his supervised release. Mot. to Modify Condition of Sup. Rel.

(ECF No. 230); Mot. for Early Term. of Sup. Rel. (ECF No. 239). Two others seek the return of

two guns and a passport. Mot. for Return of Prop. (ECF No. 231); Motion for Joinder (ECF No.

237). The last raises a legal challenge to the prospective application of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) to

Reardon based on his non-violent felony conviction. Mot. for Decl. J. and Inj. Relief (ECF No.

232).

The Motions are resolved below, following a background narrative.

Background

On November 3, 2022, I sentenced Reardon to a term of imprisonment of 20 months to be

followed by a term of supervised release of three years, following Reardon’s guilty plea to five

counts of bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Judgment (ECF No. 159). A standard

condition of supervised release requires Reardon to answer truthfully questions asked by his

probation officer. Id., Std. Cond. 4. Another prohibits Reardon’s ownership, possession, and

access to firearms or other dangerous weapons, including stun guns. Id., Std. Cond. 10. The

standard condition pertaining to weapons is not merely a condition imposed because of an
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 241 Filed 04/29/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
1490

underlying felony conviction. It is also imposed for the protection of the public and the officers

of the U.S. Office of Probation and Pretrial Services for the duration of supervision. The Judgment

also includes special conditions of supervised release. One requires Reardon to give his probation

officer any requested financial information. Id., Spec. Cond. 1. Another prohibits Reardon from

incurring new debts or seeking new lines of credit. Id., Spec. Cond. 3. Another prohibits Reardon

from being self-employed and requires him to maintain continuous employment by a disinterested

third party. Id., Spec. Cond. 6. Yet another requires Reardon to participate and comply with the

requirements of the Computer and Internet Monitoring Program. Id., Spec. Cond. 7. I imposed

the special conditions due to the nature of Reardon’s criminal conduct, which involved fraudulent

applications for pandemic-related government business loans. Reardon appealed the Judgment.

Nov. 11, 2022, Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 161).

Reardon started supervised release in July of 2023. In August of 2023, Reardon was

detained pending a revocation hearing. Order of Detention (ECF No. 176). At the hearing,

Reardon’s probation officer testified concerning certain violations of the terms of supervised

release. Among other concerns, Reardon was not complying with the requirement to provide

truthful financial disclosures. Additionally, the probation officer discovered a handgun and a taser

in Reardon’s family residence during a search. (There was also a handgun in a vehicle in the

driveway, but evidently it was Reardon’s father’s vehicle). Another concern involved information

and evidence that Reardon was continuing to engage in self-employment through one or more

companies holding rental properties, despite the special condition prohibiting the same. Tr., Test.

of Mitchell Oswald (ECF No. 182).

On October 16, 2023, I entered judgment (ECF No. 185) on the motion to revoke (ECF

No. 184), based on Reardon’s admission of guilt to violation of Standard Condition 4 and Special

2
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 241 Filed 04/29/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
1491

Conditions 1, 3, and 6. The Government withdrew the charge of violating the prohibition on guns,

but it has maintained possession of two firearms that are the subject of Reardon’s motions seeking

the return of property (ECF Nos. 231, 237). I imposed a nine-month sentence due to Reardon’s

violations, to be followed by a 25-month term of supervised release, subject, again, to the standard

and special conditions discussed above, among other conditions. Rev. J. (ECF No. 185). Reardon

appealed. Oct. 16, 2023 Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 187).

On May 23, 2024, the First Circuit returned its Judgment on Reardon’s initial appeal (ECF

No. 194). It affirmed the sentence but remanded for an “explanation for why [the prohibition on

self-employment] was the minimum restriction necessary to protect the public.” United States v.

Reardon, 102 F.4th 558, 559 (1st Cir. 2024); see also First Cir. Op. and J. (ECF Nos. 193-194).

On July 23, 2024, following a sentencing hearing, I issued an Amended Judgment. Am. J. (ECF

No. 201). Reardon appealed. Aug. 5, 2024 Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 203).

On August 5, 2024, the First Circuit rejected Reardon’s appeal of “his top-of-the-range

sentence following the revocation of a term of supervised release” and affirmed the revocation

sentence. United States v. Reardon, 111 F.4th 142, 144 (1st Cir. 2024); see also First Cir. Op. and

J. (ECF Nos. 204-205).

On October 2, 2024, Reardon moved for my recusal, which I denied. Mot. to Recuse (ECF

No. 210); Order on Mot. to Recuse (ECF No. 214). Reardon appealed. Oct. 28, 2024 Notice of

Appeal (ECF No. 218). That matter remains pending before the First Circuit.

Following completion of his second term of incarceration, Reardon has served roughly

one-half of the most-recent 25-month term of supervised release, without incident. In March and

April of 2025, Reardon filed the pending motions.

3
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 241 Filed 04/29/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
1492

DISCUSSION

A. Supervised Release

Reardon requests that the Court modify the conditions of his supervised release to remove

a prohibition against self-employment and a requirement that Reardon submit to computer and

internet monitoring. Defendant’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Supervised Release (ECF No.

230). In another, more recent motion, Reardon requests that the Court terminate his supervised

release based on good behavior and a desire to increase his earning capacity to better contribute to

his family and to make headway in his effort to pay reimbursement. Def.’s Mot. for Early Term.

(ECF No. 239).

Federal sentencing law states that the sentencing court may “terminate a term of supervised

release and discharge the defendant released at any time after the expiration of one year of

supervised release,” provided that the court “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)(1). The

sentencing court may also modify or reduce conditions of supervised release “at any time prior to

the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release, pursuant to the provisions of the

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of probation and the provisions

applicable to the initial setting of the terms and conditions of post-release supervision.” Id.

§ 3583(e)(2). When considering such action, the statute instructs courts to proceed “pursuant to

the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure relating to the modification of

probation.” Id. For a modification, the court is instructed to consider, as well, “the provisions

applicable to the initial setting of the terms and conditions of post-release supervision.” Id.

Whether considering a termination or a modification request, the Court must also consider a set of

relevant sentencing factors under § 3553(a). Id. § 3583(e). These are the nature and circumstances

4
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 241 Filed 04/29/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
1493

of the offense and history and characteristics of the defendant, deterrent effect, protection of the

public, provision of needed training and care or correctional treatment to the defendant, kinds of

sentence and sentencing range advised by the Sentencing Commission, any pertinent Commission

policy statement, avoiding sentence disparities, and the need for restitution. Id. §§ 3553(a),

3583(e).

Upon consideration of these factors, I reject the request for early termination of supervised

release (ECF No. 239). I do not believe that early termination is warranted, especially as Reardon’s

second term of incarceration already reduced his term of supervision. Additionally, releasing

Reardon from supervision at this time would undermine the deterrent effect of sentencing and the

need for supervision to protect the public. Furthermore, the characteristics of the defendant, in

particular his umbrage at the idea that he deserves deterrence or poses a threat to the public, and

his upset at the terms of his sentence, similarly militate against the early termination of supervision.

For the same reasons, I also reject the request for removal of the special condition requiring

participation and compliance in the Computer and Internet Monitoring Program.

As for Special Condition 6, which prohibits self-employment and requires employment by

a third party, I am persuaded that this condition can and should be modified to lessen the burden

on Reardon by allowing for him to increase his income, better support his family, and pay

restitution. I also perceive that the total prohibition of self-employment has posed special

difficulties for Reardon to the extent that he has historically earned income through rental

properties. Despite this, Reardon has worked to comply with the requirement for roughly one year

and I am persuaded that he has demonstrated personal progress in this regard. His interest in

rehabilitation is also evident, particularly in regard to his desire to pay restitution. Accordingly,

in the interest of substantial justice and mindful of the need to ensure deterrent effect, protect the

5
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 241 Filed 04/29/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
1494

public, and account for the characteristics of the defendant, Special Condition 6 is modified as

follows:

6) Defendant shall not be self-employed other than in the business of rental property
ownership and management. Concurrently, he shall maintain continuous
employment by a disinterested third party. Defendant shall not open any new
businesses, sole proprietorships, partnerships, limited partnerships, or corporations,
except as necessary to reestablish himself in the aforementioned business of rental
property ownership and management.

B. Return of Property

Reardon seeks the return of two firearms taken by his probation officer following a search

of his premises (ECF No. 231). He states that one firearm is owned by his wife and the other by

his father. In reaction to the Government’s response that Reardon’s family members are required

to file their own motions for recovery of their firearms, Reardon has filed a motion to join them in

this criminal case.

Reardon’s Motion for Joinder (ECF No. No. 237) is DENIED without prejudice to the wife

or father’s interest in recovering the firearms. Reardon’s Motion for Return of Property (ECF No.

No. 231) is DENIED, as his pleading establishes that he is not the party with the ownership interest.

To the extent Reardon seeks to recover his passport, he may do so without filing a motion under

Fed. R. Crim. P. 41, so that request is DENIED, as moot.

C. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

Reardon’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief to Restore Second

Amendment Rights (ECF No. No. 232) is DENIED within the context of this criminal case. The

denial is without prejudice to Reardon’s ability to pursue such relief in a civil action.

CONCLUSION
Consistent with the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion for Early Termination (ECF No. 239)

is DENIED and Defendant’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Supervised Release (ECF No. 230)

6
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 241 Filed 04/29/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
1495

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Special Condition 6 is modified as set forth in

the body of this Order.

Defendant’s Motion for Joinder (ECF No. No. 237) and Motion for Return of Property

(ECF No. 231) are DENIED.

Defendant’s Motion for Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief to Restore Second

Amendment Rights (ECF No. No. 232) is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.
Dated this 29th day of April, 2025.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge

File and source

File: 241.pdf
Size: 162,171 bytes
SHA-256: facb0f760445085ba2f0b9b2e71c5049515af50cfc2fa4016b7b5030795679d8
Our copy: 241.pdf
Original: No public link identified.