Report and Recommendation on Defendant's 55 Motion — USA v. Lorquet (Dkt. 67, S.D. Fla.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM · Doc. 67 · 2023-06-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 
Case No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  
 
v. 
 
ANDRE LORQUET, 
 
Defendant.  
_______________________________/ 
 
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Defendant Andre Lorquet’s (“Lorquet”) Motion to 
Withdraw Plea (ECF No. 55).  The Government did not file a response, and the time to do so has 
passed.  The Motion was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable K. Michael Moore, United 
States District Judge, to take all necessary and proper action as required by law and/or to submit a 
Report and Recommendation on Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Plea.  (ECF No. 62).  Upon 
consideration of the Motion, Response, Reply, a review of the record, and being otherwise fully 
advised in the premises, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion to 
Withdraw Plea be GRANTED.  
I. 
DISCUSSION 
On July 22, 2022, Defendant was charged by Indictment with four counts of wire fraud, in 
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; three counts of money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957; 
and one count of aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).   
On January 24, 2023, the undersigned held a hearing on Defendant’s acceptance of a guilty 
plea.  At the hearing, Defendant pled guilty to Count 7 of the Indictment, which charges Defendant 
with money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1957; and Count 9 of the Indictment, which charges 
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 67   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2023   Page 1 of 3

 
2
Defendant with aggravated identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1).   
A criminal defendant may withdraw a guilty plea after the Court accepts it but before it 
imposes a sentence if “the defendant can show a fair and just reason for requesting the withdrawal.”  
Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B); see also United States v. Williams, 803 F. App’x 379, 380 (11th Cir. 
2020).  “A pre-sentence motion to withdraw is to be liberally construed,” although there is no absolute 
right to withdrawal.  United States v. Cesal, 391 F.3d 1172, 1179 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated on other 
grounds by Cesal v. United States, 545 U.S. 1101 (2005) (quoting United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 
469, 471 (11th Cir. 1988)).   
In deciding a pre-sentence motion to withdraw guilty plea, the Court considers the “totality of 
the circumstances surrounding the plea,” including “(1) whether close assistance of counsel was 
available; (2) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary; (3) whether judicial resources would be 
conserved; and (4) whether the government would be prejudiced if the defendant were allowed to 
withdraw his plea.”  United States v. Chicago, 711 F. App’x 512, 515 (11th Cir. 2017); see also 
Buckles, 843 F.2d at 471–72.  “The defendant carries the burden to show a fair and just reason for 
withdrawal of his plea.”  United States v. Midkiff, 806 F. App’x 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2020).   
Defendant’s reasons for wishing to withdraw his plea are directly related to challenging the 
effectiveness of the representation of his then-attorney, Zeljka Bozanic.  Notwithstanding 
Defendant’s answers during the January 24, 2023 plea colloquy that he was satisfied with his then-
counsel’s representation, (ECF No. 63 at 29:16–18), in the present Motion Defendant asserts 
otherwise.  Defendant represents that “he plead guilty because he was under duress, that he did not 
understand he was signing a plea agreement and believed that he was signing paperwork related to 
the reinstatement of his bond.”  (ECF No. 55 at ¶ 4).  Though Defense counsel represents in the 
Motion that she reviewed the plea agreement with Defendant, Defendant now asserts that his plea 
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 67   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2023   Page 2 of 3

 
3
was not given knowingly or voluntarily.  The Government did not respond in opposition.  As such, 
Defendant’s averments are uncontroverted.  The Court is satisfied the first two prongs favor 
Defendant being allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. 
Regarding judicial resources, the Court’s resources will not be conserved by continuing with 
sentencing; the case could be revisited on a post-conviction motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 requiring 
the Court’s attention and time were the present Motion denied. 
Finally, with regard to prejudice, though the Motion represents that it is opposed by the 
Government, no opposition has been filed and no prejudice articulated.  This factor weighs in favor 
of granting the Motion.  On this record, the Court concludes Defendant has met his burden to be 
entitled to withdraw his guilty plea. 
II. 
RECOMMENDATION 
Accordingly, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion to 
Withdraw Plea (ECF No. 55) be GRANTED. 
The parties will have FOURTEEN (14) DAYS from the date of service of this Report and 
Recommendation within which to file written objections, if any, for consideration by the United States 
District Judge.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b), Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, and accompanying 
Internal Operating Procedure 3, the parties are hereby notified that failure to object in accordance 
with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to challenge on appeal the District Court’s order based 
on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions.  See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). 
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 9th day of June, 
2023.  
________________________________ 
LAUREN F. LOUIS  
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 
 
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM   Document 67   Entered on FLSD Docket 06/09/2023   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.616975.67.0.pdf

Size

155,167 bytes

SHA-256

2d2dd286e2e74b95e2d7534a2bf8f901d3017e42d525d5bb608f13bd283effee

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.616975.67.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)