USA v. MACVICAR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:22-cr-63-LEW
)
KEVIN MACVICAR, 	)
)
Defendant/Petitioner 	)
ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
On November 18, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court,
with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on pro se Defendant-Petitioner
Kevin MacVicar’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (2255) (ECF No. 50).
Mr. MacVicar filed his Objection (ECF No. 73) on January 5, 2026. 	The
Government filed its Response (ECF No. 74) on January 20, 2026. 	I have reviewed and
considered the Recommended Decision, the Objection and the Government’s Response,
together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters
adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with the recommendations of the
United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision,
and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
Despite my concurrence with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation, I offer a few
words on Special Condition 2 of the supervisory portion of the sentence, which imposes a
restriction on Mr. MacVicar’s parental rights. 	Although it is not outside the bounds of
possibility that I might have modified Special Condition 2 at sentencing to avoid a
Case 1:22-cr-00063-LEW Document 75 Filed 04/03/26 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
restriction involving parental rights, I agree with the Magistrate Judge that Attorney
Tzovarras’s representation did not fall below a standard of objective reasonableness and
therefore cannot excuse Mr. MacVicar’s procedural default. 	In particular, the restriction
is worded in a way that supports MacVicar’s cohabitation with his wife and son following
his release, although as currently drafted his wife or another approved adult would need to
be present when MacVicar and his son are together in the home. 	Mr. MacVicar is
encouraged to seek modification of Special Condition 2 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2)
and Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1, following release from the custodial portion of his sentence and
after a reasonable period of abiding by the condition without incident.
For the reasons set out above, it is ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of
the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 70) is hereby AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
The motion for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED and DISMISSED
without an evidentiary hearing.
It is further ORDERED that no certificate of appealability will issue from this Court
because the Petitioner-Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.A. § 2253(c)(2).
SO ORDERED .
Dated this 3rd day of April, 2026.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:22-cr-00063-LEW Document 75 Filed 04/03/26 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>