Response to 54 Objections to Presentence Investigation Report by USA as to Andre Lorquet — USA v. Lorquet (Dkt. 57, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM · Doc. 57 · 2023-03-22 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
CASE NO: 22-CR-20329-MOORE 
 
 
UNITED STATESOF AMERICA, 
 
 
v. 
 
ANDRE LORQUET, 
 
 
Defendant. 
________________________________/ 
 
 
UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO THE 
PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT 
 
 
The United States of America (the “Government”) responds to the Defendant Andre 
Lorquet’s Objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSI”) [ECF No. 54] as follows: 
Objection 1 
 
The Defendant objects to paragraphs 6 and 40 of the PSI “in that he did not violate the 
conditions of his bond.”  Obj. at 1 ¶ 1.  This objection should be overruled because the PSI does 
not state that the Defendant violated the conditions of his bond.  Rather, the PSI states that, 
according to the United States Probation Office, the Defendant was not compliant with his bond, 
and as a result a petition was filed with the Court and the Defendant was arrested and remanded.  
These facts are indisputable.  Paragraphs 6 and 40 of the PSI repeat these facts and do not conclude 
whether the Defendant violated his bond.  Therefore, the Defendant’s objections are inapplicable.   
Objection 2 
 
The Government agrees with the Defendant’s objections to paragraphs 41 and 49 of the 
PSI, Obj. at 2, ¶ 2, because the Government does not believe that the Defendant attempted to 
obstruct or impede the administration of justice.  Although the obstruction of justice enhancement 
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 57   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2023   Page 1 of 2

  
-2- 
does apply to “escaping or attempting to escape from custody before trial or sentencing,” U.S.S.G. 
§ 3C1.1, cmt. n.4(e), the Defendant’s application for a passport card does not rise to the level of 
this offense.  There is insufficient evidence from the fact of the Defendant’s application for a 
passport card that the Defendant “consciously acted with the purpose of obstructing justice.”  
United States v. Perkins, 787 F.3d 1329, 1342 (11th Cir. 2015).  The Government also agrees with 
the Defendant that his application for a passport card does not vitiate his acceptance of 
responsibility, and he should receive a 2-level adjustment accordingly. 
Respectfully submitted on March 22, 2023,        
     
 
 
 
 
 
 
MARKENZY LAPOINTE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BY:  
Jonathan Bailyn    
 
 
 
 
 
 
Jonathan R. Bailyn, AUSA 
Court ID No. A5502602 
99 Northeast Fourth Street, 6th Floor 
Miami, Florida 33132-2111 
Phone: (305) 961-9071 
jonathan.bailyn@usdoj.gov 
 
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 57   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/22/2023   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.616975.57.0.pdf

Size

149,493 bytes

SHA-256

a786c558aeb6de62ba09e566f2dd25e5c536e0188cd2776fb5cac18876b362f0

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.616975.57.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)