United States v. Malik
U.S. District Court, District of Maryland · D. Md. · Maryland bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se federal supervised-release defendant filed motion with a fabricated Sentencing Guidelines quote and nonexistent state administrative codes; AI use implied.
Consequence
Motion and amended motion denied; AI-conduct addressed on the record without separate monetary sanction extracted.
Lesson
Bredar chambers handles pro se AI-fabrications in supervised-release motion practice without standalone Rule 11 sanction.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- United States v. Malik, No. JKB-16-0324 (D. Md. Sept. 19, 2025) (Bredar, J.)
- Decided
- September 19, 2025
Summary
Atif Malik, proceeding pro se on a health-care-fraud conviction, filed a motion for early termination of supervised release. The motion's "Addendum" (docketed as an Amended Motion) purported to quote an upcoming U.S. Sentencing Guidelines amendment and to cite several state administrative codes barring re-licensure during supervised release. Judge James K. Bredar's September 19, 2025 order found the Addendum's information inaccurate: the Guidelines amendment did not contain the attributed language and the cited state administrative code provisions "either do not exist or do not contain the information that he attributes to them." The court noted that when using generative AI, litigants must be aware such platforms "sometimes 'hallucinate.'"
- AI tool:
- Generative AI implied; the order references a fabricated legal-norm citation characteristic of AI hallucination output
What sanction did the court impose?
Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release denied (ECF 599); Amended Motion for Early Termination of Supervised Release denied (ECF 604). The court declined to impose a separate sanction, instructing Malik in a footnote to "take care that his filings with the Court do not contain any such 'hallucinations.'" The disposition is warning-class with denial of the underlying motion.
Why does United States v. Malik matter for law firms using AI?
United States v. Malik is a District of Maryland AI-hallucination order arising in pro se supervised-release motion practice. Atif Malik, convicted in 2017 on health-care-fraud counts, filed a motion for early termination of supervised release whose Addendum purported to quote an upcoming Sentencing Guidelines amendment and cited state administrative codes that the court found either nonexistent or misdescribed. Judge James K. Bredar denied the motion and a follow-up amended motion on September 19, 2025. The matter sits within Bredar’s broader supervised-release docket and is one of the few surfaced D. Md. AI orders arising in criminal rather than civil contexts. Cross-reference: D. Md. civil AI-citation orders from this period for the broader chambers-practice context.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- When a represented co-defendant in a multi-defendant federal prosecution faces a pro se co-defendant filing supervised-release motions citing fabricated authorities, monitor whether the defective citations affect the represented client's parallel motion practice.
- Track Judge Bredar's chambers practice on AI-hallucinated citations in pro se criminal post-conviction motions; the September 2025 Malik order is a baseline reference for D. Md. supervised-release contexts.