Lorne's Detainment Documents

Case 1:08-cr-00013-TBR-ERG Document 94 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 503
. F!L '-. L
. C Oi '!'i
•r :. I I '· Jt;
Dear Honorable Thomas B. Russell;
2DJs Nov -s f !( •
I apologize for not responding to the United States response motion. I did not know that I ha fhtw
P/1 J. I r::
option. I had hired a lawyer and he did the first motion that I put in. I had to put it in as prose because
the lawyer I hired left the firm he was employed with and moved out of state. If I had known I had that
option was available to me I would have responded.
I know the order has been made and sent to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals but I would be a fool to
still not send at least a letter on my own behalf. After all it is my life that we are dealing with and I don't
take it lightly. Especially when it comes to a charge like this.
The United States continuously mentions the condoms, the camera and the gift that I had brought to
the sting house. This is the first time I am responding to that. The condoms were in my truck because I
use to go to the karaoke bars in Nashville a lot because my dream was to make it in country music. I
would be ignorant to not have condoms when going to bars. The camera was in my truck because I had
tried to pawn it at 3 different pawn shops in Nashville, TN on Nolensville Pike. Non'e of them would take
it because of the duct tape on the back that was there to hold the cover in place. I had told the federal
investigator that, that was initially working on my case with my first federal lawyer but he never
bothered to do any investigating. Even when the United States threatened me that they would add
I
Attempted Production of Child Pornography which holds up to 30 years if I didn't accept the plea
agreement that was offered. As for the "gift". Excuse my language to the court but the gift was crap!
They (meaning NBC and they're employees, Perverted f~stice) had asked me to bring a gift.
The United States also states in a round-about way that my mental state of mind was fine. If my
mental state of mind was fine then I never would have given away three truck-loads of tools and sold my
house for $8,000 (eight thousand dollars) after having over $60,000 (sixty-thousand dollars) into it and
moved away where I had no family to finally, at the age of 36, pursue my childhood dream. I also never
would have been diagnosed with depression a short time after being in the jail. My original lawyer
would have known about that had he ever bothered to check .... even after I told him about that the jail
psychiatrist put me on Prozac for depression.
Because of losing my hired attorney I ask the Court to allow my case to be put on hold for 6 (six)
months so I can rebuild my finances and search for another attorney. I have found new evidence and
cannot proceed with the new evidence without an attorney.
So that I do not leave the United States blind to this letter I will also send them a copy as well.
I thank the Court for it's time in reading this letter and once again apologize for not being aware of
my right to respond to the United States motion.
Sin:::Jlk---
~rne Armstrong
Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 23 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 65
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
v. )
) 1:13-cr-00011-JAW
LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG, )
)
Defendant )
MOTION TO REOPEN DETENTION HEARING
NOW COMES Defendant, by and through undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this
Court to reopen the detention hearing in this matter, and states as follows.
Defendant appeared before this Court on August 7, 2019 for purposes of a detention
hearing. At that time this Court found it was not possible to release Defendant on any conditions
and held him as a result of that finding. This Court did indicate, however, that in the event
Defendant was able to obtain sex offender treatment counseling services, then this Court would
reconsider his request to be released on conditions pending his final supervised release hearing.
Defendant has reached out to providers in the community and found a provider who is willing to
provide services in this case. A letter from the provider indicating openings as well as the type of
treatment and costs is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court
reopen his detention hearing in light of these newly discovered treatment providers.
Date: August 15, 2019 /s/ Matthew D. Morgan

MATTHEW D. MORGAN
Maine Bar No. 5044
Counsel for Defendant
McKee Law, LLC, P.A.
133 State Street
Augusta, ME 04330
(207) 620-8294
mmorgan@mckeelawmaine.com

DISTRICT OF MAINE
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on August 15, 2019, I caused the filing of the foregoing Motion to
Reopen Detention Hearing with the Clerk of Court which sent such notice to the following:
Joel B. Casey
Assistant United States Attorney
United States Attorney’s Office
joel.casey@usdoj.gov
/s/ Matthew D. Morgan

MATTHEW D. MORGAN
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT
Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 23-1 Filed 08/15/19 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 68
Prob 12C
(6/13)

for the District of Maine
Petition for Warrant or Summons for Offender under Supervision
Name of Offender: Lorne Lynn Armstrong Case Number: 0100 1:13CR00011

a/k/a lorne_a_20014
Sentencing Judicial Officer: Honorable Thomas B. Russell, U.S. District Judge, Western
District of Kentucky
Assigned Judicial Officer: Honorable John A. Woodcock, Jr., U.S. District Judge
Date of Original Sentence: June 30, 2008
Original Offense: Travel in Interstate Commerce to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct, 18 U.S.C
§ 2423(b) and (e)
Original Sentence: 60 Months Imprisonment concurrent with Warren Circuit Court (KY) Dkt.
No. 07-CR-992; Lifetime Supervised Release
Type of Supervision: Supervised Release
Date Supervision Commenced: November 05, 2012
Assistant U.S. Attorney: Defense Attorney:

Todd Lowell, AUSA Jamie Nixon
PETITIONING THE COURT
☒ To issue a warrant/matter to be sealed pending arrest or until detainer is lodged.

☐ To issue a warrant/matter to be sealed pending arrest. Attachment to remain sealed after arrest.
☐ To issue a summons.
The probation officer believes that the offender has violated the following condition(s) of
supervision:
Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance
One Violation of Standard Condition No. 7: The Defendant shall refrain

from excessive use of alcohol.
On September 15, 2015, during a home inspection, United States

Probation Officer Mitchell Oswald observed Armstrong consuming
alcohol. He admitted he consumed four (4) beers. Eight (8) empty beer
bottles were observed in the residence.
Prob 12C Petition for Warrant or Summons
(6/13) for Offender Under Supervision
On October 7, 2015, Armstrong reported to Sex Offender Treatment

meeting while under the influence of alcohol. Armstrong later admitted
to the treatment provider that he had consumed three (3) beers prior to
attending treatment.
Two Violation of Special Condition added through a modification on

October 9, 2015: Defendant shall not use or possess any controlled
substance, alcohol or other intoxicant; and shall participate in a
program of drug and alcohol abuse therapy to the supervising
officer’s satisfaction. This shall include testing to determine if the
Defendant has used drugs or intoxicants. Defendant shall submit to
one test within 15 days of release from prison and at least two, but
not more than 120 tests per calendar year thereafter, as directed by
the supervising officer. Defendant shall pay/co-pay for services
during such treatment to the supervising officer’s satisfaction.
Defendant shall not obstruct or tamper, or try to obstruct or
tamper, in any way, with any tests.
On May 4, 2017, Armstrong admitted to Supervisory U.S. Probation

officer (SUSPO) Bryce Turgeon that he had consumed alcohol on
March 29, 2017 and drank an average of a 12 pack of beer, over a
weekend, 3 times per month.
On July 26, 2017, Armstrong admitted to this officer that he consumed

alcohol that day.
On October 4, 2017, Armstrong submitted a positive alcohol test with

a .063 BAC. U.S. Probation Officer Stacy Laflin contacted Armstrong
about the positive result, and he admitted to consuming alcohol.
On April 16, 2019, Armstrong admitted to this officer he had

consumed alcohol (6-12 beers during an evening) approximately once
per month over the past year.
On June 28, 2019, Armstrong called this officer to report he had

consumed alcohol three times since his last polygraph exam on March
28, 2019.
On July 24, 2019, Armstrong admitted to SUSPO Bryce Turgeon he

had consumed alcohol on July 7, 2019 and reported he has been
consuming alcohol on a weekly basis since he completed the Soberlink
testing on December 4, 2017. He reported he consumes, on average, 7-
12 beers in a sitting.
Three Violation of Special Condition added through a modification on

July 28, 2017: In addition to any other requirements, Defendant
shall submit to testing with a remote alcohol monitoring device that
measures breath alcohol content for a period not to exceed 4
months; not to exceed 5 tests per day. Defendant shall pay/co-pay
for services, directly to the monitoring company, to the supervising
officer’s satisfaction. Defendant shall not obstruct or tamper, or try
to obstruct or tamper, in any way, with any tests. During the

remote alcohol testing period, the Court authorizes a search of
defendant’s geographic location and movements by the probation
office via the program’s equipment.
On October 3, 2017, Armstrong failed to submit a breath test as

directed.
On October 6, 2017, Armstrong failed to submit a breath test as

directed.
Four Violation of Special Condition added through a modification on

July 9, 2015: Defendant shall participate and comply with the
requirements of the Computer and Internet Monitoring Program
(which may include partial or full restriction of computer(s),
internet/intranet, and/or internet-capable devices), and shall pay
for services, directly to the monitoring company. The defendant
shall submit to periodic, unannounced examinations of his/her
computer(s), storage media, and/or other electronic or internet-
capable device(s) performed by the probation officer Based on
reasonable suspicion of contraband evidence of any prohibited data
and/or the removal of such systems for the purpose of conducting a
more thorough inspection.
On February 9, 2018, Armstrong admitted to SUSPO Bryce Turgeon

he had purchased an unauthorized smartphone.
On March 28, 2018, Armstrong admitted he used a third party to

access the internet without permission from U.S. Probation. He
admitted he would have the third party make changes to his YouTube
channel to circumvent being prohibited from internet access. This is a
violation of the Computer and Internet Monitoring Agreement.
Five Violation of Special Condition added through a modification on

July 9, 2015: Defendant shall fully participate in sex offender
treatment as directed by the supervising officer. Defendant shall
pay/copay for services during such treatment to the supervising
officer’s satisfaction. He/she shall abide by all policies and
procedures of that program.
On July 25, 2019, Armstrong was suspended from sex offender

treatment for purposely withholding information regarding his behavior
pertaining to his alcohol use, as required by the treatment contract.
U.S. Probation Officer Recommendation:
☒ The term of supervision should be:

☒ revoked.
☐ extended for {years} for a total of {years} years.
☐ the conditions of supervision should be modified as follows:
I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on: July 25, 2019
Respectfully Submitted,
KIMBERLY RIEGER
Chief U.S. Probation Officer
By:
Maria L. Schokman
U.S Probation Officer
Reviewed:
Bryce R. Turgeon
Supervisory U.S. Probation Officer
10/12/2017
SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION

COVER SHEET
Name: Lorne Lynn Armstrong
Y/O/B: 1970
Offense(s) of Conviction and Classification: Travel in Interstate Commerce to Engage in illicit

Sexual Conduct, Class B Felony
Original Sentence: 60 Months Imprisonment concurrent with Warren Circuit Court

(KY) Dkt. No. 07-CR-992; Lifetime Supervised Release
Date Imposed: June 30, 2008
Available Penalties for Current Violation (with statutory reference); 3 Years

Imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3)
Additional Period of Release: Supervised Release for Life, less any term of
imprisonment imposed upon a revocation of supervised release, 18 U.S.C § 3583(k)
Supervising U.S Probation Officer

Maria L. Schokman

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
BOWLING GREEN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
v. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:08CR-13-TBR
LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG DEFENDANT
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Lorne Lynn Armstrong’s pro se motion for
appointment of counsel (DN 98). Specifically, Defendant seeks appointment of “a new federal
defender for my case.” He alleges, “I have newly discovered evidence that was not available to
me before now and I cannot have the same federal defender as I did originally . . . . My newly
discovered evidence is partially based around my original lawyer so it is critical that I obtain a
new public defender.”
Review of the record reveals that Defendant has no matter pending for this Court to
appoint him counsel. The Court cannot act without authority. To the extent, however, that
Defendant is seeking to challenge his conviction based on newly discovered evidence and
seemingly also on ineffective assistance of counsel, at this stage of litigation, Defendant may
raise these new claims only by way of a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Defendant, however, has already filed a § 2255 motion in this Court. He
also has twice filed Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b) motions for relief from judgment
that the Court transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals as unauthorized second or
successive § 2255 motions, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on both occasions denied
Defendant authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in this Court.

Defendant is well aware, therefore, that “[b]efore a second or successive application . . .
is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an
order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A);
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (“A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section
2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals . . . .”); see also In re Hanserd, 123 F.3d 922,
934 (6th Cir. 1997) (explaining that “[i]nmates who wish to file a second or successive motion to
vacate sentence should first file a motion in [the Sixth Circuit] requesting permission under 28
U.S.C. §§ 2244, 2255”). “[Section] 2244(b)(3)(A) acts as a jurisdictional bar to the district
court’s asserting jurisdiction over any successive habeas petition until [the appellate] court has
granted the petitioner permission to file one.” United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir.
2000). “When a statute removes jurisdiction over a particular type of case from the district
courts, it must by necessity also remove from the district courts’ consideration motions for the
appointment of counsel to file the particular claims over which the district courts lack
jurisdiction.” Id. (“Key’s motion for the appointment of counsel should have been brought in
[the court of appeals] as part of his § 2244(b)(3) petition for authorization to file a successive
habeas petition in the district court.”).
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction over a second or successive § 2255 motion absent
permission from the Sixth Circuit, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for appointment
of counsel (DN 98) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in this Court is DENIED.
Date: March 22, 2018
cc: Defendant, pro se

U.S. Attorney
4413.005
2
FILED
I Sl~ 1 r·"'COU"l ,[Ric;
-1 L '> 1 r !!' '·1 - ' • • !<' • • •1 r 11. ·1
2018 HAR I 2 A 11 : 2'
fl1y IA Ii/, WtL J5 L'9 r /11..f. A
,-'!)A, 5 <-f-v-01 II-/. tlJJ C tt.rt'
11 IA,.,wr.,h.ttr u' 5 () Fr-c:,){~o(JO t 3 - ~15 R~ .r Ot-JN< /,l()f.J{l~ I
'fe Qs /{ ./J.e.- ec n.e.,w -fed-t~/ deA1tJe•- 4r 7

J.- ?uw-e IA e.W/1 tf,'Jfdl)evY?t/ £-ti Io/<Mc C 'f-t:&t !- iA.Ja.f
110'1- av& l la~!{. /-9 M/o..t befrg 1~e IA& w tll!jtl I X ccJ1jiV1-tf>'f
Adf.A.l~ fi.t_ .sa uu /!e;/.f r~&r, / J-t, ~It tk ~ a 5 :C d/d
Cif'bJ.ur,f /r 1
w4t'c../.. wcu SC<?f! /JentY"dr-thr /
. f!ll'-} f!w&
~,';-c.,;,;er-eJ e.v!Jenc~ h- 611.teJ ?()_rf:a/&
ara"..d ~ or1yii1C/ /aW!f.er .SiJ 1 f ,5 u-1/.<4 / ~Y 1
::C IJ.hi-&ti'n 0t. nbi// pv.-bl1 'e- d~;;11Je-r,
>~;t~/a/
l &' u, e Jh, .J-n,ny M J
fa rn,r;.
..;,. ~l~
~.·· .·...i
---· )
:tJ
iTi
/l1
- t.J
b
z
~....
~· ~
.:..;·.... ...~
--··-·
--··-
-·-·

WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT BOWLING GREEN
LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG MOVANT/DEFENDANT
v. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:08CR-13-TBR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF
ORDER
By Memorandum and Order (DN 93) entered October 22, 2015, the Court transferred
Defendant Lorne Lynn Armstrong’s pro se Rule 60(b) motion (DN 89) to the Sixth Circuit Court
of Appeals as a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Now before the Court is
Armstrong’s letter (DN 94) asking the Court “to allow my case to be put on hold for 6 (six)
months so I can rebuild my finances and search for another attorney.” Because this matter has
been transferred to the jurisdiction of the Sixth Circuit, there is nothing pending in this Court to
be “put on hold.” Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Armstrong’s request for such relief (DN 94) is DENIED.
Armstrong must direct any further requests regarding this matter to the Sixth Circuit. See
Case No. 15-6185.
Date: March 22, 2018
cc: Movant/Defendant, pro se

U.S. Attorney
4413.005
Case: 15-6185 Document: 9-1 Filed: 05/06/2016 Page: 1 (1 of 4)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540
Deborah S. Hunt POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE Tel. (513) 564-7000
Clerk CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 www.ca6.uscourts.gov
Filed: May 06, 2016
Lorne Lynn Armstrong

19 Arieannas Way
Canaan, ME 04924
Mr. Terry M. Cushing

Office of the U.S. Attorney
717 W. Broadway
Louisville, KY 40202
Re: Case No. 15-6185, In re: Lorne Armstrong

Originating Case No. : 1:08-cr-00013-1
Dear Sir or Madam,
The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.
Sincerely yours,
s/Amy E. Gigliotti for Cheryl Borkowski

Case Manager
Direct Dial No. 513-564-7035
cc: Ms. Vanessa L. Armstrong
Enclosure
No mandate to issue
No. 15-6185
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 06, 2016
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
)
)
In re: LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG, )
) ORDER
Movant. )
)
)
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; SILER and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.
Lorne Lynn Armstrong, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks authorization to file a
second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence.
In 2008, Armstrong pleaded guilty to traveling in interstate commerce to engage in illicit
sexual conduct, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b) and (e). In a written plea agreement,
Armstrong agreed to waive his right to appeal or collaterally attack his conviction and sentence.
He was sentenced 60 months’ imprisonment and a life term of supervised release. He did not
appeal.
Armstrong subsequently filed a § 2255 motion in which he argued that (1) his guilty plea
was not made knowingly and voluntarily, (2) trial counsel was ineffective for various reasons,
(3) the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct when it failed to provide him with
exculpatory evidence, (4) he was entrapped by the government and the Dateline NBC series, To
Catch A Predator, and (5) he was interrogated in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436
(1966). A district court denied the § 2255 motion, determining that Armstrong’s guilty plea and
waiver were valid and that Armstrong had thus waived his right to raise his remaining claims in a
§ 2255 motion.
In 2012, Armstrong filed a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion, which the
district court transferred to this court as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.
No. 15-6185
-2-
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1631, 2244(b); In re Sims, 111 F.3d 45, 47 (6th Cir. 1997). This court denied
Armstrong’s resulting application for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
In 2015, Armstrong filed another Rule 60(b) motion, arguing that the “inmate legal aide”
who prepared his § 2255 motion improperly pleaded several issues and failed to argue that trial
counsel was ineffective for failing to (1) seek an independent mental health evaluation, or
(2) explain the collateral consequences of his guilty plea. The district court transferred the
motion to this court as an unauthorized § 2255 motion.
Armstrong now moves for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. To obtain
authorization to file a second or successive motion under § 2255, Armstrong must make a prima
facie showing that the motion contains:
(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence
as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that
no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review
by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Any claim that was presented in a
prior § 2255 motion is subject to dismissal. Charles v. Chandler, 180 F.3d 753, 758 (6th Cir.
1999) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(1)).
Armstrong proposes to argue that trial counsel failed to seek a mental health evaluation
despite the fact that he was medicated for depression while in jail. He contends that he did not
raise this claim earlier because he “[d]id not know it was a big deal until [he] talked to an
attorney and found that it is a normal thing that attorneys do in any situation.” His application
also includes a copy of a page from his 2012 application for authorization, in which he proposed
to argue that he was entrapped and that the broadcast of the sting operation caused prejudicial
pretrial publicity and violated communications laws.
To the extent that Armstrong raised these claims in his initial § 2255 motion, they are
subject to dismissal. See Charles, 180 F.3d at 758. Armstrong’s purported ignorance of the law
does not satisfy either prong of § 2255(h). Furthermore, he does not rely on a new rule of
No. 15-6185
-3-
constitutional law and has not shown that his claim regarding ineffective assistance of trial
counsel in connection with the failure to secure mental health evaluation relies on newly
discovered evidence; nor has Armstrong demonstrated that this evidence alone would suffice to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him
guilty of the offense.
For the foregoing reasons, Armstrong’s application for authorization to file a second or
successive § 2255 motion is DENIED.
ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT
Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk


DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
v. ) 1:13-cr-00011-JAW
)
LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG, )
)
Defendant )
ORDER OF DETENTION
PENDING REVOCATION HEARING
On August 7, 2019, Defendant Lorne Lynn Armstrong appeared before this Court for
an initial appearance on a Petition to Revoke Supervised Release. At that time, Defendant
waived his right to a preliminary hearing. The Court, therefore, found there is probable cause
to believe Defendant committed the alleged violations. Defendant requested a hearing on the
issue of detention pending revocation hearing.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1(a)(6), Defendant has the burden
of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there are conditions or combinations of
conditions which will reasonably assure the safety of another person or the community and
that there is no danger that he will flee the jurisdiction. After hearing, and for the reasons
stated on the record, including the fact that Defendant has been suspended from sex offender
treatment, the Court finds that Defendant has failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing
evidence that he does not pose a danger to the community.
Therefore, it is ORDERED that Defendant be held pending revocation hearing to be
scheduled before United States District Judge John A. Woodcock, Jr.

It is further ORDERED that Defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney
General or his designated representative for confinement in a corrections facility separate, to
the extent practicable, from persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody
pending appeal. Defendant shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity for private
consultation with defense counsel. On order of a court of the United States or on request of
an attorney for the Government, the person in charge of the corrections facility shall deliver
Defendant to the United States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection with
a court proceeding.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John C. Nivison

U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 8th day of August, 2019.
2
Case 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 11 Filed 07/09/18 Page 1 of 2
Prob 12B
PageID #: 50
(2/13)

Request for Modifying the Conditions or Term of Supervision

With the Consent of the Offender
(Probation Form 49, Waiver of Hearing is Attached)

a/k/a lorne_a_2014
Assigned Judicial Officer: Honorable John A. Woodcock Jr., U.S. District Judge
Original Offense: Travel in Interstate Commerce to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct, 18 U.S.C. §
2423(b) and (e)
Type of Supervision: Supervised Release Date Supervision Commenced: November 05,

2012
☐ To extend the term of supervision for years, for a total term of years.
☒ To modify the conditions of supervision as follows:
Remove Special Condition No. 4 added through a Modification on July 9, 2015. Add the
following:
Defendant shall participate and comply with the requirements of the Computer and Internet
Monitoring Program (which may include partial or full restriction of computer(s),
internet/intranet, and/or internet-capable devices), and shall pay for services, directly to the
monitoring company. The defendant shall submit to periodic or random unannounced searches
of his/her computer(s), storage media, and/or other electronic or internet-capable device(s)
performed by the probation officer. This may include the retrieval and copying of any
prohibited data. Or, if warranted, the removal of such system(s) for the purpose of conducting
a more comprehensive search.
ME Prob 12B
(2/13)
CAUSE
It is recommended that the condition of computer monitoring be updated to reflect the

contemporary language used in the District of Maine. The defendant has agreed to the requested
modification, as evidenced by the attached waiver.
KIMBERLY RIEGER
By
Maria L. Schokman
U.S. Probation Officer
Reviewed:
Bryce R. Turgeon
7/9/2018
Case
Prob 12B 1:13-cr-00011-JAW Document 6 Filed 07/27/17 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 40
(2/13)

Request for Modifying the Conditions or Term of Supervision

With the Consent of the Offender
(Probation Form 49, Waiver of Hearing is Attached)

a/k/a lorne_a_2014
Assigned Judicial Officer: Honorable John A. Woodcock Jr., U.S. District Judge
Original Offense: Travel in Interstate Commerce to Engage in Illicit Sexual Conduct, 18 U.S.C.
§ 2423(b) and (e)
Type of Supervision: Supervised Release Date Supervision Commenced: November 05,

2012
☐ To extend the term of supervision for years, for a total term of years.
☒ To modify the conditions of supervision as follows:
In addition to any other requirements, Defendant shall submit to testing with a remote alcohol
monitoring device that measures breath alcohol content for a period not to exceed 4 months; not
to exceed 5 tests per day. Defendant shall pay/co-pay for services, directly to the monitoring
company, to the supervising officer’s satisfaction. Defendant shall not obstruct or tamper, or try
to obstruct or tamper, in any way, with any tests. During the remote alcohol testing period, the
Court authorizes a search of defendant’s geographic location and movements by the probation
office via the program’s equipment.
Defendant shall not associate with individuals consuming alcoholic beverages, shall not frequent
business establishments whose primary product is alcoholic beverages, and shall not use any
medication containing alcohol without permission from the supervising officer or a prescription
from a licensed physician.
ME Prob 12B
(2/13)
CAUSE
On July 26, 2017, this U.S. Probation Officer received a call from Maine State Police. State
Police reported that on the above date, they responded to the defendant’s address for a welfare
check. The caller stated to police that the defendant was suicidal. As State Police responded to
the residence, it was observed, through a window, that the defendant was sitting in the house
with multiple opened cans of beer in front of him. Upon knocking on the door, the defendant
was observed putting the beer cans away prior to answering the door. After making contact with
the defendant, he told police he was not suicidal.
The defendant called this officer on July 26, 2017 to report he had police contact and he had
drank alcohol. During that conversation, the defendant admitted he has a problem with alcohol
and would benefit from substance abuse treatment.
The U.S. Probation Office believes that remote alcohol monitoring and a prohibition on going to
establishments that primarily provide alcohol will allow for closer supervision of the defendant
and assist him with maintaining his sobriety. As evidenced by the attached Probation Form 49,
Waiver of Hearing to Modify Conditions, the defendant has agreed to the modification.
KAREN-LEE MOODY
By:
Maria L. Schokman
U.S Probation Officer
Reviewed:
Bryce R. Turgeon
7/27/2017

Lorne's Detainment Documents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lorne's Detainment Documents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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's Detainment Documents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:08-cr-00013-TBR-ERG Document 94 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 503

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

MOTION TO REOPEN DETENTION HEARING

treatment and costs is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

Date: August 15, 2019 /s/ Matthew D. Morgan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

/s/ Matthew D. Morgan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Name of Offender: Lorne Lynn Armstrong Case Number: 0100 1:13CR00011

Date of Original Sentence: June 30, 2008

Type of Supervision: Supervised Release

Date Supervision Commenced: November 05, 2012

Assistant U.S. Attorney: Defense Attorney:

PETITIONING THE COURT

☒ To issue a warrant/matter to be sealed pending arrest or until detainer is lodged.

Violation Number Nature of Noncompliance

One Violation of Standard Condition No. 7: The Defendant shall refrain

On September 15, 2015, during a home inspection, United States

On October 7, 2015, Armstrong reported to Sex Offender Treatment

Two Violation of Special Condition added through a modification on

On May 4, 2017, Armstrong admitted to Supervisory U.S. Probation

On July 26, 2017, Armstrong admitted to this officer that he consumed

On October 4, 2017, Armstrong submitted a positive alcohol test with

On April 16, 2019, Armstrong admitted to this officer he had

On June 28, 2019, Armstrong called this officer to report he had

On July 24, 2019, Armstrong admitted to SUSPO Bryce Turgeon he

Three Violation of Special Condition added through a modification on

to obstruct or tamper, in any way, with any tests. During the

On October 3, 2017, Armstrong failed to submit a breath test as

On October 6, 2017, Armstrong failed to submit a breath test as

Four Violation of Special Condition added through a modification on

On February 9, 2018, Armstrong admitted to SUSPO Bryce Turgeon

On March 28, 2018, Armstrong admitted he used a third party to

Five Violation of Special Condition added through a modification on

On July 25, 2019, Armstrong was suspended from sex offender

U.S. Probation Officer Recommendation:

☒ The term of supervision should be:

☐ extended for {years} for a total of {years} years.

☐ the conditions of supervision should be modified as follows:

I declare under penalty of perjury the foregoing is true and correct.

SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATION

Offense(s) of Conviction and Classification: Travel in Interstate Commerce to Engage in illicit

Original Sentence: 60 Months Imprisonment concurrent with Warren Circuit Court

Date Imposed: June 30, 2008

Available Penalties for Current Violation (with statutory reference); 3 Years

Supervising U.S Probation Officer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF

v. CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:08CR-13-TBR

LORNE LYNN ARMSTRONG DEFENDANT

new public defender.”

Defendant authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in this Court.

Defendant is well aware, therefore, that “[b]efore a second or successive application . . .

habeas petition in the district court.”).

Date: March 22, 2018

cc: Defendant, pro se

'fe Qs /{ ./J.e.- ec n.e.,w -fed-t~/ deA1tJe•- 4r 7

::C IJ.hi-&ti'n 0t. nbi// pv.-bl1 'e- d~;;11Je-r,