Opposition to Motion to Expunge Probation Violation — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 257)

Summary

Opposition to "Motion to Expunge Probation Violation", filed May 21, 2025 as Document 257, Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW, United States v. Nathan Reardon, District of Maine. The Government opposes Defendant Nathan Reardon's Motion (Dkt. #244) and asks that it be denied as frivolous, stating the "probation violation" means 2023 violations of the terms of supervised release. It states that at the October 13, 2023 Final Revocation Hearing Defendant conceded to violations 1, 2, 4, and 5, and was sentenced to 9 months imprisonment and 25 months supervised release. It states that the First Circuit vacated the self-employment ban and remanded, and that the Court modified the condition on April 29, 2025. It is signed /s/ ANDREW K. LIZOTTE, AUSA.

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

“Opposition to Motion to Expunge Probation Violation — United States v. Nathan Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 257).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-d-me-no-1-21-cr-00061-dkt-257-25c9d13d17/, SHA-256 e01d23fdebdaa750141f843958396017ae79f6d77080018f05fdf26eca1c6bb0.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 257 Filed 05/21/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
1635

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW

NATHAN REARDON

OPPOSITION TO “MOTION TO EXPUNGE PROBATION VIOLATION”

The Government, by and through undersigned counsel, opposes Defendant

Nathan Reardon’s “Motion to Expunge Probation Violation.” Dkt. #244, May 8, 2025

(the “Motion” or “Mot.”). The Court should deny the Motion as frivolous. No factual or

legal bases exist to “expunge” Defendant’s “probation violation,” by which he means his

2023 violations of the terms of his supervised release. Because Defendant misrepresents

those revocation proceedings, the Government provides the below overview.

Facts

Probation on August 16, 2023, petitioned to revoke Defendant’s supervised

release and sought an arrest warrant. Dkt. # 167. Five violations were alleged:

1. Violation of Special Condition #1: Defendant shall provide the supervising
officer any requested financial information.

2. Violation of Special Condition #6: Defendant shall not be self-employed and
shall be continuously employed for compensation by a disinterested third
party. Defendant shall not open any businesses, sole proprietorships,
partnerships, limited partnerships, or corporations. Defendant shall dissolve
any corporations and businesses that exist on the date of sentencing.

3. Violation of Standard Condition #10: You must not own, possess, or have
access to a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or dangerous weapon
(i.e., anything that was designed, or was modified for, the specific purpose of
causing bodily injury or death to another person such as nunchakus or tasers).

4. Violation of Standard Condition #4: You must answer truthfully the questions
asked by your probation officer.

1
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 257 Filed 05/21/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
1636

5. Violation of Special Condition #3: Defendant shall not incur new credit
charges or open additional lines of credit without the supervising officer’s
advance approval.

Id. at 1-2. An arrest warrant issued and was executed on August 24, 2023. Dkt. ##168-

69. Later that same day, preliminary revocation and detention hearings were held,

following which probable cause was found and Defendant was ordered detained. Dkt.

##171, 177. On September 1, 2023, Probation issued its Revocation Report, reasserting

the same five violation offenses and providing additional factual support for each. Dkt.

#179.

On October 13, 2023, a Final Revocation Hearing was held, at which Defendant

conceded to violations 1, 2, 4, and 5. Dkt. #183. Defendant confirmed for the Court that

he understood the violations. Revocation Sentencing Tr. at 6, Dkt. #192. Defendant

confirmed for the Court that he admitted and did not wish to have a hearing on the

violations. Id. Defendant “apologize[d] for what happened,” to both the Court and the

probation officer. Id. at 19. The Court sentenced Defendant to 9 months imprisonment

and 25 months supervised release. Dkt. #183; see also Revocation Sentencing Tr. at 6-7,

Dkt. #192. A Revocation Judgment issued accordingly, covering the four violations to

which Defendant admitted guilt:

1. Violation of Special Condition #1: Defendant shall provide the supervising
officer any requested financial information.

4. Violation of Standard Condition #4: You must answer truthfully the questions
asked by your probation officer.

5. Violation of Special Condition #3: Defendant shall not incur new credit

2
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 257 Filed 05/21/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
1637

charges or open additional lines of credit without the supervising officer’s
advance approval.

Dkt. #185 at 1-2.

Preceding these revocation proceedings, Defendant had appealed to the First

Circuit for review of Special Condition #6, concerning the prohibition against self-

employment. See Dkt. #161. On May 23, 2024, the First Circuit “vacate[d] the self-

employment ban and remand[ed] to the district court for resentencing limited to a

reexamination of the scope of that restriction.” Dkt. #193 at 27. The First Circuit

stressed that “nothing in [its] decision prohibit[ed] the re-imposition of an occupational

restriction on remand that satisfies section 5F1.5’s requirements.” Id. Indeed, in

remanding for re-evaluation of the scope of the self-employment restriction, the First

Circuit “observe[d] that the record certainly would support a finding that an

occupational restriction was warranted.” Id. at 18.

On July 23, 2024, resentencing was held. Dkt. #200. Defendant received the

same sentence then as he did initially, including the same special conditions covering

the self-employment restriction. Compare Dkt. ##200-01 (July 23, 2024), with Dkt.

#155 (Nov. 2, 2022).

Defendant moved on March 11, 2025, for the Court to lift the self-employment

restriction. Dkt. #230. The Government opposed. Dkt. #233, Mar. 31, 2025. On April

29, 2025, the Court granted in part Defendant’s motion concerning the self-employment

restriction, modifying the condition to provide that “Defendant shall not be self-

employed other than in the business of rental property ownership and management,

and, “[c]oncurrently,” requiring Defendant to “maintain continuous employment by a

disinterested third party.” Dkt. #241 at 5-6. This modification was made “to lessen the

3
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 257 Filed 05/21/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
1638

burden on [Defendant] by allowing for him to increase his income, better support his

family, and pay restitution.” Id. at 5. In modifying rather than outright removing the

self-employment restriction, however, the Court noted “the need to ensure deterrent

effect, protect the public, and account for the characteristics of the defendant. . .” Id. at

5-6.

Argument

Roughly one week after this Court’s modification of the self-employment

condition, Defendant filed the pending Motion, seeking “to expunge the record of his

August 2023 [supervised release] violation and related incarceration.” Mot. at 1. As the

above record demonstrates, however, Defendant’s Motion is predicated on a series of

obvious falsehoods.

For starters, the revocation proceedings at issue were initiated for more than

“allegedly violating a condition of supervised release that prohibited self-employment.”

Mot. at 1 (emphasis added). Defendant’s violations were just that—violations, plural.

Defendant frames his Motion as singularly concerning the self-employment ban. But he

conceded to and was sentenced on four violations, not one. See Dkt. ##183, 185, & 192.

Second, the First Circuit did not issue a “ruling striking down this same self-

employment condition as unconstitutional.” Mot. at 1; id. (“[t]he condition forming the

basis of the violation was later deemed unlawful by the First Circuit”). As previously

discussed, the First Circuit simply issued a remand, emphasizing that “nothing in [its]

decision prohibit[ed] the re-imposition of an occupational restriction on remand that

satisfies section 5F1.5’s requirements.” Dkt. #193 at 27. The First Circuit even foot-

stomped “that the record certainly would support a finding that an occupational

restriction was warranted.” Id. at 18.

4
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 257 Filed 05/21/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
1639

Third, in modifying the self-employment restriction, the Court did not “rescind[]

the condition,” or “itself recognize[] the overreach[.]” Mot. at 2. Defendant’s allegations

in this regard, especially so close on the heels of the Court’s order modifying the

condition, show a profound refusal to face facts. His lack of accountability reinforces

“the need to ensure deterrent effect, protect the public, and account for the

characteristics of the defendant” though the continuation of his supervised release

conditions. See Dkt. #241 at 5-6.

Finally, the Government emphasizes that this Motion is part of a broader effort

by Defendant to frivolously relitigate his underlying criminal case. See, e.g., Order, Dkt.

# 241 at 1, Apr. 29, 2025 (disposing of five motions filed by Defendant in 1:21-cr-00061-

LEW). In this single calendar year alone, Defendant also has filed eight related civil

actions, naming as defendants the Chief U.S. District Judge, U.S. Probation Officers, the

former United States Attorney, the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, the

United States of America, the Bangor Daily News, and various John Does. See D. Me.

Dockets 1:25-cv-00154-LEW, 1:25-cv-00232, 1:25-cv-00187-NT, 1:25-cv-00188-MSM,

1:25-cv-00191-NT, 1:25-cv-00235, 1:25-cv-00243, and 1:25-cv-00244-NT. Defendant’s

status as a serial litigator may warrant the imposition of filing restrictions, in order to

allocate limited judicial resources and promote the interests of justice. In re McDonald,

489 U.S. 180, 184 (1989) (“[t]he continual processing of . . . frivolous [filings] does not

promote [the interests of justice]”); Cok v. Fam. Ct. of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 34-35 (1st Cir.

1993) (courts may impose filing restrictions after providing abusive litigants notice and

an opportunity to be heard).

5
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 257 Filed 05/21/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
1640

Conclusion

The Motion should be denied.

Dated: May 21, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
Bangor, Maine
CRAIG M. WOLFF
Acting United States Attorney

/s/ ANDREW K. LIZOTTE
Andrew K. Lizotte, AUSA
United States Attorney’s Office
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, Maine 04401
(207) 262-4636
Andrew.Lizotte@usdoj.gov

6
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 257 Filed 05/21/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
1641

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 21, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, and caused a copy via first-class mail to be
sent to the following:
Nathan Reardon, P.O. Box 52, Detroit, ME 04929

CRAIG M. WOLFF
Acting United States Attorney

/s/ ANDREW K. LIZOTTE
Andrew K. Lizotte, AUSA
United States Attorney’s Office
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, Maine 04401
(207) 262-4636
Andrew.Lizotte@usdoj.gov

File and source

File: 257.pdf
Size: 146,457 bytes
SHA-256: e01d23fdebdaa750141f843958396017ae79f6d77080018f05fdf26eca1c6bb0
Our copy: 257.pdf
Original: No public link identified.