United States v. Malik (2025)

Case details
Full caption
D. Maryland. UNITED STATES of America v. Atif MALIK
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Maryland (MD)
Court
Supreme Court of Maryland
Decided
2025
Majority
James K. Bredar (J.) (unanimous Court)
United States v. Malik, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12025 WL 2687413Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.United States District Court, D. Maryland.UNITED STATES of Americav.Atif MALIK, Defendant.CRIM. NO. JKB-16-0324|Signed September 19, 2025Attorneys and Law FirmsJefferson McClure Gray, Sean R. Delaney, Stephen M.Schenning, Tamera Lynn Fine, Assistant U.S. Attorneys,John Joseph Truex Chung, Matthew P. Phelps, DOJ-UnitedStates Attorney's Office, Baltimore, MD, for United States ofAmerica.MEMORANDUM AND ORDERJames K. Bredar, United States District Judge*1 Pending before the Court is Defendant Atif Malik's pro seMotion for Early Termination of Supervised Release pursuantto 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1).1 (ECF No. 599.) For the reasonsset forth below, the Motion will be denied.On October 27, 2017, a jury convicted Malik on 25 countsrelating to a health care fraud scheme. (ECF No. 272.) OnFebruary 9, 2018, before sentencing, Malik was incarceratedbecause the Government discovered that Malik had appliedfor a Pakistani passport and may have been attempting toflee. (ECF No. 412 at 4.) In June 2018, Malik pled guiltyto an additional count relating to the fraud scheme. (Id.) OnSeptember 11, 2018, this Court sentenced Malik to 96 monthsof imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervisedrelease. (ECF No. 423.) Malik was released from custodyon December 3, 2023. (ECF No. 601. at 2.) His supervisedrelease is set to run until December 3, 2026. (Id.)Malik now requests that the Court exercise its discretionunder 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1) to terminate his supervisedrelease early. After considering the factors laid out in 18U.S.C. § 3553(a), a district court may terminate a term ofsupervised release after the defendant has served at least oneyear of the term “if it is satisfied that such action is warrantedby the conduct of the defendant released and the interestof justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(1). However, “[n]eitherthe passage of time nor full compliance with the termsof supervised release are sufficient bases to warrant earlytermination.” United States v. Farris, No. 5:14-CR-0008,2021 WL 1588972, at *2 (W.D. Va. Apr. 22, 2021).In his Motion, Malik asserts that he has complied fully withthe terms of his supervised release so far, has a spotlessrecord as a physician, and is unable to get re-licensed as adoctor while on supervised release. In the “Addendum” tohis Motion, Malik emphasizes this last point. He purportsto provide a quote from an upcoming amendment to theUnited States Sentencing Guidelines which instructs courtsto consider whether a defendant is unable to obtain aprofessional license due to supervised release status. Malikalso purports to cite several state administrative codes whichshow that he is barred from re-licensure while on supervisedrelease.The information in Malik's Addendum is not accurate. TheGuidelines amendment does not contain the language thatMalik attributes to it, and the state administrative codeprovisions that Malik cites either do not exist or do not containthe information that he attributes to them.2*2 As to the remainder of Malik's argument, the Courtconcludes that early termination of supervised release isnot warranted. The Court recognizes that Malik has so farcomplied with the conditions of supervised release, but asnoted above, this is not a sufficient basis for early terminationof supervised release. Furthermore, while Malik poses littlerisk to public safety and has support from communitymembers, the Court is also cognizant of the seriousness ofthe offense, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(1), and the need for thesentence to reflect that seriousness, see 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). Malik engaged in a brazen scheme to enrich himself,defraud the United States, and potentially put his patients’health at risk. While Malik's record as a doctor may otherwisebe unblemished, that does not diminish his responsibilityfor these crimes. The original sentence the Court imposedreflected this. Overall, after consideration of the § 3553(a)factors, the Court finds that the conduct of the defendant andthe interests of justice do not justify a modification of thissentence.Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant AtifMalik's Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release(ECF No. 599) is DENIED. The Addendum to Malik's
United States v. Malik, Slip Copy (2025) © 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2Motion, listed as an “Amended Motion” on the docket (ECFNo. 604), is also DENIED.All CitationsSlip Copy, 2025 WL 2687413Footnotes1Three days after the Government filed its Opposition to Malik's Motion (ECF No. 601), Malik filed an“Addendum” to his Motion (ECF No. 604). Although the “Addendum” has been docketed as an “AmendedMotion,” the Court construes this filing as a reply to the Government's Opposition Memorandum.2While the Court affords pro se litigants substantial latitude in their filings, that does not provide permissionto include nonexistent quotations and citations. In particular, when using generative artificial intelligence,litigants must be aware “that such platforms sometimes ‘hallucinate,’ meaning they provide inaccurateresponses.” See Kruglyak v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 3d 767, 770 (W.D. Va. 2025). In thelegal research context, this can result in fake legal citations and misrepresentations of legal documents.See id. In the future, Malik is instructed to take care that his filings with the Court do not contain any such“hallucinations.”End of Document© 2025 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access