Government's Response in Opposition to Motion for Prompt Adjudication — Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 350)

Summary

Government's Response in Opposition to Petitioner's Motion for Prompt Adjudication of Intended-Loss Sentencing Claim, filed June 2, 2026 as Document 350, Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW, Nathan Reardon v. United States of America, District of Maine. The Government opposes Defendant Nathan Reardon's pro se Motion (Dkt. 344), stating that it is meritless and devoid of any factual or legal support and raises a new sentencing claim years after the judgment became final. It states that the Court has imposed a filing restriction on Reardon because of countless frivolous filings in civil cases. If the Court concludes the motion is frivolous, the Government asks it to consider placing some limits on Reardon's motions practice. It is signed By: /s/ Brian S. Kleinbord, Assistant U.S. Attorney.

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

“Government's Response in Opposition to Motion for Prompt Adjudication — Reardon (D. Me., Dkt. 350).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-d-me-no-1-21-cr-00061-dkt-350-badd0f9b59/, SHA-256 21acbb5c328f23eb8597d78beb07ea63bd843a6674de8c0e53eb274644a1a6bf.

Full text

Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 350 Filed 06/02/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
1998

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

NATHAN REARDON,
Petitioner,

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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR PROMPT ADJUDICATION OF INTENDED -LOSS SENTENCING CLAIM

The Government opposes Defendant Nathan Reardon’s pro se Motion for Prompt

Adjudication of Intended-Loss Sentencing Claim. Dkt. 344.

Reardon’s current motion is meritless and devoid of any factual or legal support.

Reardon’s claim is also procedurally infirm as he raises a new sentencing claim years

after his judgment became final. He cites no legal basis upon which he is entitled to the

requested relief. See United States v. Mercado-Flores, 872 F.3d 25, 28 (1st Cir. 2017)

(“When—as in this case—a judgment of conviction is entered upon imposition of a

sentence, that sentence is a final judgment and, therefore, may only be modified by the

sentencing court in certain limited circumstances.”). Reardon has failed to identify any

such circumstance here.

Moreover, this motion is part of a broader effort by Reardon to frivolously

relitigate his underlying criminal case. As a result of Reardon’s countless frivolous

filings in civil cases, the Court has imposed upon him a filing restriction pursuant to Cok

v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32 (1st Cir. 1993). See Reardon v. Domonski,

No. 1:25-cv-00268-JAW, 2025 WL 1797156 (D. Me. June 30, 2025). Pursuant to this

restriction, Reardon “shall not bring any additional pro se complaints within this

1
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 350 Filed 06/02/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
1999

District without first obtaining an order allowing the filing.” Id. at *8. Likewise, the First

Circuit recently issued an order denying Reardon’s motion for limited remand in a

closed appeal, and directed the clerk “not to accept any further filings from Appellant in

this closed appeal.” See May 29, 2026 Order, United States v. Reardon, 102 F.4th 558

(1st Cir. 2024) (No. 22-1883).

To the extent the Court determines that this motion is in any respect non-

frivolous, the Government would respectfully reserve its right to supplement the instant

response. If the Court concludes that the motion is frivolous, however, it should

consider placing some limits on Reardon’s motions practice. See United States. v.

Gómez-Rosario, 418 F.3d 90, 101 (1st Cir. 2005) (federal courts may “enjoin a party—

even a pro se party—from filing frivolous and vexatious motions”).

Dated: June 2, 2026 Respectfully submitted,

ANDREW B. BENSON
United States Attorney

By: /s/ Brian S. Kleinbord
Brian S. Kleinbord
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney’s Office
100 Middle Street
Portland, ME 04101
(207) 780-3257
Brian.Kleinbord@usdoj.gov

2
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 350 Filed 06/02/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
2000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 2, 2026, I caused the foregoing response to be

electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will provide

notification of such filing to the following:

Nathan Reardon
P.O. Box 52
Detroit, ME 04929

ANDREW B. BENSON
United States Attorney

By: /s/ Brian S. Kleinbord
Brian S. Kleinbord
Assistant U.S. Attorney
U.S. Attorney’s Office
100 Middle Street
Portland, ME 04101
(207) 780-3257
Brian.Kleinbord@usdoj.gov

File and source

File: 350.pdf
Size: 108,754 bytes
SHA-256: 21acbb5c328f23eb8597d78beb07ea63bd843a6674de8c0e53eb274644a1a6bf
Our copy: 350.pdf
Original: No public link identified.