Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 51 Filed 06/18/24 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 175

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. ) Docket No.: 1:13-CR-11-JAW
)
LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG )

DEFENDANT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR

EARLY TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE WITH
INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

NOW COMES Lorne Armstrong, defendant, through counsel, and respectfully

offers the following reply memorandum in support of his motion for early termination

of supervised release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) that

the balance of his supervised release be terminated and that he be discharged effective

immediately. In further support of the motion, Mr. Armstrong offers the following,

incorporated reply memorandum of law.

A. The Government’s Position.

The government “defers to the view of the U.S. Probation Office in these

matters”. See ECF #50 at p.1. The Probation Office’s view is that it opposes Mr.

Armstrong’s motion. Id. at p.2. In support of its opposition, the Probation Office cites

the nature and circumstances of the offense, and the offender’s history and

characteristics. Id. It does so in spite of it’s acknowledgment that since “the defendant

began his second term of supervised release in the District of Maine ... the defendant

has participated in Sex Offender Treatment .... begun working at his own business,

1
Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 51 Filed 06/18/24 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 176

recycling pallets” and in spite of the fact that there “have been no instances of

noncompliance that have necessitated Court notification”. Id. at p.1.

More specifically, it states that “[t]hrougout his time on supervision, the

defendant has participated in the Sex Offender Treatment Program .... [t]he

defendant’s conduct, at times, was so disruptive to the group that he was removed”1

and that based upon that and his “previous revocation” which Mr. Armstrong

acknowledged in his initial filing and which was adjudicated nearly five years ago the

Probation Office’s Administrative Office criteria are not met. Id. at p. 2 (emphasis

added).

B. Mr. Armstrong’s Reply.

The government acknowledges that 18 U.S.C. § 3583, not the Probation Office’s

internal Administrative Office criteria2 controls the consideration of Mr. Armstrong’s

motion. The statute does not distinguish between types of offenses (e.g. sex offenses).

It focuses however on the fact that the Court must be “satisfied that such action is

1
The probation office reports that “[t]he clinician assigned to the defendant,
Julie Rosania, LCSW, has been consulted on this matter, and joins the Probation Office in
opposition to the request”. Id. at p.2. Mr. Armstrong however reports that he met with Ms.
Rosania the week of June 10, 2024 and that she reported to him that she did not assert a
position “in opposition to the request” only that she advised the Probation Office of Mr.
Armstrong’s status/progress in the program.
2
In the context of these criteria, the Probaton Office states that his
“noncompliance ... does not show an ability to lawfully self-manage beyond the period of
supervision” but this is in contrast to the fact that the Probation Office has permitted Mr.
Armstrong to travel out of the country, unsupervised on more than one occasion, that there
have been no known violations/issues around that travel and that Mr. Armstrong’s
significant other and their child have also visited with Mr. Armstrong at his residence
without any involvement or supervision by the Probation Office and, again, with no known
violations/issues associated with that visit.

2
Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 51 Filed 06/18/24 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 177

warranted by the conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice”. Id. at p.3. Mr.

Armstrong does not challenge that the Court needs to be so satisfied. What he does

challenge however is the fact that the Court’s determination should be guided at least

in part by temporal considerations. In other words, the Court must determine the

“conduct of the defendant and the interest of justice” at fixed points of time.

The operative statute invites the Court to consider the possibility of termination

after the expiration of at least one year of supervision. Mr. Armstrong has been on

supervision for more than a decade. He acknowledges the violations that supported

his one prior revocation nearly five years ago. The probation office discusses Mr.

Armstrong’s conduct during sex offender treatment “at times”. Beyond that broad

phrase we have no specificity that would allow the Court to know when this “conduct”

occurred3.

As the Court likely observed, Mr. Armstrong’s May 8, 2024 motion tracked the

Court’s advice to him at his last revocation hearing that at some point the Court might

entertain the possibility of terminating his supervised release early. To do so,

however, the Court made clear that Mr. Armstrong would have to (from that point

forward) keep his nose clean, maintain a straight line, stop bothering the probation

office, stop drinking and not be dishonest with the probation office. Mr. Armstrong

respectfully submits that the government and the probation office have not, in the

3
The probation office also states that “defendant has not remained in
substantial compliance with all conditions of his supervision” but, again, does not provide
any information concerning the timing of this purported noncompliance. Id. at p.2. It is
impossible to know if it is referring to conduct before or after Mr. Armstrong’s one
revocation.

3
Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 51 Filed 06/18/24 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 178

response to Mr. Armstrong’s motion, suggested that Mr. Armstrong has not done any

of those things since he last appeared before the Court. In other words, he has

complied with the advice the Court provided him at that time.

The government, in a footnote, argues that “mere compliance ... [alone] with the

terms of release does not qualify a defendant for such a remedy”. Id. at p.3, n.1; citing

United States v. McKay, 352 F. Supp. 2d 359, 361 (E.D.N.Y. 2005). Mr. Armstrong

states in reply that more than mere compliance qualifies him for this remedy at this

time. As the probation office concedes, Mr. Armstrong has started his own business.

He has also become a father and, always looming over this particular case which likely

is not present in many, if any, other cases, is the existence of, in the probation office’s

words, “the harassment the defendant has been subjected to at the hands of many

online groups”4. Id. at p.2. Indeed, on information and belief, the substance of Mr.

Armstrong’s May 8, 2024 motion was disseminated within these online groups within

hours, if not minutes, of its filing. Release of Mr. Armstrong from supervised release

may permit Mr. Armstrong the freedom to physically relocate to a location unknown

to these groups. While there is no guarantee of that since these groups are

spectacularly dogged in their pursuit and harassment of him, it might at least provide

him the chance to move forward.

4
The probation office acknowledges that Mr. Armstrong has recently begun to
resist the natural urge to engage with these groups. Id. at p.2.

4
Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 51 Filed 06/18/24 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 179

C. CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Mr. Armstrong respectfully asks

this Court to grant his motion and terminate his supervised release effective

immediately.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 18, 2024 /s/ James S. Nixon

James S. Nixon, Esquire
Assistant Federal Defender
Office of the Federal Defender
23 Water Street, Suite 206
Bangor, Maine 04401
Attorney for Defendant

5
Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 51 Filed 06/18/24 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 180

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. ) Docket No.: 1:13-CR-11-JAW
)
LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, James S. Nixon, Esquire, Assistant Federal Defender for the District of Maine,
hereby certify that on June 18, 2024, I electronically filed Defendant’s Motion for Early
Termination of Supervised Release with Incorporated Memorandum with the Court via
the CM/ECF electronic filing system which will send notification of such filing via said
system electronically on the 18th day of June, 2024 to the following persons:

Andrew McCormack, Assistant U.S. Attorney

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
202 Harlow Street, Rm 111
Bangor, Maine 04401
[email protected]

Mitchell Oswald, Senior Probation Officer

U.S. Probation & Pretrial Services Office
202 Harlow Street, Rm 209
Bangor, ME 04401
[email protected]

Dated: June 18, 2024 /s/ James S. Nixon______________________

James S. Nixon, Esquire
Assistant Federal Defender
Office of the Federal Defender
23 Water Street, Suite 206
Bangor, Maine 04401
Attorney for Defendant