Lorne Government Response

Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 50 Filed 06/04/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 171
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. 1:13-cr-00011-JAW
v.
LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

REQUEST FOR EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE
The United States of America, by and through its attorneys, Darcie N. McElwee,
United States Attorney for the District of Maine, and Andrew McCormack, Assistant
United States Attorney, submits this response to the defendant’s request for early
termination of supervised release. The Government generally defers to the view of the
U.S. Probation Office in these matters and today it learned the position of USPO is as
follows:
On June 30, 2008, the defendant was sentenced by the Honorable Thomas
B. Russell, United States District Judge for the Western District of
Kentucky, to 60 months imprisonment and a lifetime of supervised release
following a conviction for one count of Travel in Interstate Commerce to
Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct, 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 (b) and (e). On
November 5th, 2012, the defendant began his term of supervised release in
the District of Maine. The District of Maine assumed jurisdiction of the
case on January 11, 2013.
On October 1, 2019, the defendant appeared before the Honorable John A.

Woodcock Jr., United States District Judge, for a revocation hearing. The
defendant admitted to violating four conditions of supervised release and
was sentenced to six months imprisonment to be followed by a lifetime of
supervised release.
On February 5, 2020, the defendant began his second term of supervised

release in the District of Maine. Since that time, the defendant has
participated in Sex Offender Treatment, and begun working at his own
business, recycling pallets. There have been no instances of
noncompliance that have necessitated Court notification.
The defendant now comes before the Court requesting early termination of
his term of supervised release. The United States Probation Office
respectfully opposes this request based on the nature and circumstances of
the offense, and the offender's history and characteristics.
The instant offense in this case involves interstate travel to engage in

sexual conduct with a minor, who the defendant believed to be thirteen
(13) years of age. The defendant began an online “chat” relationship with
the presumed thirteen-year-old, who was in fact a decoy, for
approximately 1 month before the offense. In that month, the defendant’s
chat log grew to over 400 pages. Additionally, the chats included the
defendant teaching the decoy to masturbate, transmitting photos of his
genitals, and describing, in detail, sexual acts he wished to perform with
the decoy. The defendant also encouraged the decoy to delete evidence of
their chats. Finally, the defendant traveled over 60 miles to meet the decoy
in person.
Throughout his time on supervision, the defendant has participated in the

Sex Offender Treatment Program, though he has failed to complete the
program. The defendant’s conduct, at times, was so disruptive to the group
that he was removed in favor of individual treatment. Examples of this
disruptive conduct include covertly transmitting the audio from the group
meeting via an open phone line, arriving to the group under the influence
of alcohol, and failing multiple maintenance polygraph exams, later
making accurate disclosures, and admitting to having been deceptive when
answering the polygraph questions.
The Probation Office acknowledges the harassment the defendant has

been subjected to at the hands of many online groups. It is of note,
however, that the defendant has, at times, willfully engaged members of
these groups, including offering to sell autographed items, and giving
interviews. The defendant has been cautioned multiple times over the
course of several years to cease engaging these requests, and only very
recently has begun to do so.
The Probation Officer’s Administrative Office favors early termination only

when specific criteria are met. The defendant fails to meet several of those
criteria. First, he committed a sex offense. Second, the defendant, given
his previous revocation and the treatment noncompliance described
above, does not show an ability to lawfully self-manage beyond the period
of supervision. Finally, the defendant has not remained in substantial
compliance with all conditions of his supervision.
The clinician assigned to the defendant, Julie Rosania, LCSW, has been
consulted on this matter, and joins the Probation Office in opposition to
the request.
2
Under 18 U.S.C. § 3583, a court may terminate a period of supervised release if,
after the expiration of at least one year of supervision and after considering certain of
the enumerated factors set forth in Section 3553(a), “it is satisfied that such action is
warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice.” Based on the
foregoing, USPO objects to granting him early termination of supervised release at this
time.
The Government concurs with the position of the U.S. Probation Office.
For all these reasons, the defendant’s motion for early termination of
supervised release should be denied.1
Dated: June 4, 2024 Respectfully submitted,
Darcie N. McElwee
United States Attorney
/s/Andrew McCormack
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney's Office
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, ME 04401
1Mere compliance with the terms of release does not qualify a defendant for such a remedy. Rather,
because “full compliance with the terms of supervised release is what is expected of a person under the
magnifying glass of supervised release,” early termination is not warranted on the basis of compliance
alone. United States v. McKay, 352 F. Supp. 2d 359, 361 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (flawless prison record and
compliance with terms of supervision are “commendable” but do not constitute “exceptional behavior”
contemplated to warrant early termination); United States v. Medina, 17 F. Supp. 2d 245, 247 (S.D.N.Y.
1998) (defendant’s unblemished post-arrest record “alone cannot be sufficient reason to terminate the
supervised release since, if it were, the exception would swallow the rule”); United States v. Weintraub,
371 F. Supp. 2d 164, 167 (D. Conn. 2005) (“[O]ngoing and full compliance with all conditions of
supervised release . . . is what is required of all criminal defendants and is not a basis for early termination
of his supervised release.”).
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on June 4, 2024, I filed the Government’s Response to

Defendant’s Request for Early Termination of Supervised Release using the CM/ECF
system and mailed a copy of the same to:
James Nixon
/s/Andrew McCormack
Assistant U.S. Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
202 Harlow Street
Bangor, Maine 04401

Lorne Government Response

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lorne Government Response

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 50 Filed 06/04/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 171

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA No. 1:13-cr-00011-JAW

LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S

On October 1, 2019, the defendant appeared before the Honorable John A.

On February 5, 2020, the defendant began his second term of supervised

The instant offense in this case involves interstate travel to engage in

Throughout his time on supervision, the defendant has participated in the

The Probation Office acknowledges the harassment the defendant has

The Probation Officer’s Administrative Office favors early termination only

supervised release should be denied.1

Dated: June 4, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

I hereby certify that on June 4, 2024, I filed the Government’s Response to

You might also like