United States v. Bridgitte Keim — M.D. Fla., Tampa, No. 8:21-cr-00370

Case summary

Bridgitte Keim waived indictment on November 29, 2021 and was prosecuted by information in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, No. 8:21-cr-00370-CEH-JSS. At a combined initial appearance, change-of-plea and bond hearing on January 5, 2022 before a magistrate judge, she waived her right to indictment and grand jury proceedings, the court found her competent to enter a plea, the government recited a factual basis, and she entered a plea of guilty to count one of the information; she was released on a $25,000 signature bond. A sentencing order followed on January 25, 2022 and a judgment was returned executed on May 16, 2022. That judgment is a ten-page scan that yields no text.

Case at a glance

What happened at the plea hearing?

The clerk's minutes for January 5, 2022 record a combined initial appearance, detention hearing, change-of-plea hearing and bond hearing before Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed. The defendant was sworn, waived her right to indictment and grand jury proceedings, and the court reviewed the plea agreement with her and found her competent to enter a plea of guilty. The factual basis recited by the government in court was established, and a plea of guilty was entered as to count one of the information, with a report and recommendation to issue to the district judge.

What were the conditions of release?

The government did not seek detention and asked for standard conditions and a $25,000 signature bond, which the defendant did not oppose. The court required her to appear in court in accordance with all notices, restricted travel to the Middle District of Florida, required her to reside at her current address and not change it without Pretrial Services approval, to surrender her passport to Pretrial Services, not to commit another crime, and to report to Pretrial Services as directed, on a $25,000 signature bond.

What does the page show after sentencing?

Government responses to defense motions seeking international travel. The response of February 2, 2024 records that the probation officer had spoken with the defendant about proposed overseas travel, that one trip had already been cancelled and that the officer had no objection to the other. The response of August 6, 2025 records that the probation officer had no objection to the relief sought and that the United States did not oppose the motion.

Summary written from the documents on this page; every sentence is sourced.