Court filing

Opinion and Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit — United States v. Andre Lorquet

No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM · Doc. 159 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 1 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 59-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 Page: 1 of 1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith For rules and forms visit
Clerk of Court www.ca11.uscourts.gov

June 10, 2025
JG
Clerk - Southern District of Florida
U.S. District Court Jun 10, 2025
400 N MIAMI AVE
MIAMI, FL 33128-1810 MIAMI

Appeal Number: 24-10902-HH ; 24-12230 -HH
Case Style: USA v. Andre Lorquet
District Court Docket No: 1:22-cr-20326-KMM-1

A copy of this letter, and the judgment form if noted above, but not a copy of the court's
decision, is also being forwarded to counsel and pro se parties. A copy of the court's decision
was previously forwarded to counsel and pro se parties on the date it was issued.

The enclosed copy of the judgment is hereby issued as mandate of the court. The court's opinion
was previously provided on the date of issuance.

Clerk's Office Phone Numbers
General Information: 404-335-6100 Attorney Admissions: 404-335-6122
Case Administration: 404-335-6135 Capital Cases: 404-335-6200
CM/ECF Help Desk: 404-335-6125 Cases Set for Oral Argument: 404-335-6141

Enclosure(s)
MDT-1 Letter Issuing Mandate
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 2 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 59-2 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 Page: 1 of 2

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________

No. 24-10902
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
versus
ANDRE LORQUET,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM-1
____________________

____________________

No. 24-12230
____________________
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 3 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 59-2 Date Filed: 06/10/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 24-10902

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
versus
ANDRE LORQUET,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM-1
____________________

JUDGMENT
It is hereby ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the opinion is-
sued on this date in this appeal is entered as the judgment of this
Court.
Entered: May 12, 2025
For the Court: DAVID J. SMITH, Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS MANDATE: June 10, 2025
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 4 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 1 of 9

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 24-10902
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
versus
ANDRE LORQUET,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM-1
____________________
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 5 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 2 of 9

2 Opinion of the Court 24-10902

____________________

No. 24-12230
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiﬀ-Appellee,
versus
ANDRE LORQUET,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM-1
____________________

Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Lorquet appeals the judgment of the district court
based on his plea of guilty to Count 7, a money laundering
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 6 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 3 of 9

24-10902 Opinion of the Court 3

violation under 18 U.S.C. § 1957. 1 On appeal, Lorquet argues that
the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to
withdraw his guilty plea because his counsel pressured him into
pleading guilty, and therefore, the Buckles 2 factors favored allowing
him to withdraw his guilty plea because he did not have close as-
sistance of counsel or knowingly and voluntarily enter his plea.
“We review the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea
for abuse of discretion.” United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298
(11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks omitted). An abuse of discretion
only occurs if the denial was “arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. (quot-
ing United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1327 n.8 (11th Cir. 2001)).
Once a district court accepts a defendant’s guilty plea,
“[t]here is no absolute right to withdraw” from it. United States v.
Medlock, 12 F.3d 185, 187 (11th Cir. 1994). Instead, a defendant may
withdraw a guilty plea after the court accepts it but before it im-
poses a sentence if he “can show a fair and just reason for request-
ing the withdrawal.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B).
When determining if the defendant has shown a fair and just
reason for withdrawal, the district court “may consider the totality
of the circumstances surrounding the plea,” using the following
four factors: “(1) whether close assistance of counsel was available;

1 Although Lorquet initially also pled guilty to Count 9 (aggravated identity

theft with respect to one of Lorquet’s many fraudulent loans), the government
later dismissed Count 9.
2 United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471-72 (11th Cir. 1988).
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 7 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 4 of 9

4 Opinion of the Court 24-10902

(2) whether the plea was knowing and voluntary; (3) whether judi-
cial resources would be conserved; and (4) whether the govern-
ment would be prejudiced if the defendant were allowed to with-
draw his plea.” United States v. Buckles, 843 F.2d 469, 471-72 (11th
Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). “The good faith, credibility and
weight of a defendant’s assertions . . . are issues for the trial court
to decide.” Id. at 472. “A defendant cannot complain of coercion
where his counsel, employing his best professional judgment, rec-
ommends that the defendant plead guilty.” Id. “[A] district court
need not ﬁnd prejudice to the government before it can deny a de-
fendant’s motion to withdraw, [but] it may take this factor into ac-
count when assessing the defendant’s motion.” Id. at 474. We have
held that, where factors one and two strongly lean against the ap-
pellant, we need not give considerable weight or attention to fac-
tors three and four. See United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, 808 F.2d
796, 801 (11th Cir. 1987) (holding that because the appellant re-
ceived close assistance of counsel and his plea was knowing and
voluntary, we would not give considerable weight or attention to
whether judicial resources would be conserved or the possibility of
prejudice to the government).
The timing of the motion to withdraw the plea is also an
important consideration. Id. “The longer the delay between the
entry of the plea and the motion to withdraw it, the more substan-
tial the reasons must be as to why the defendant seeks withdrawal.”
Buckles, 843 F.2d at 473. In United States v. Gonzalez-Mercado, we held
that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the
appellant’s motion to withdraw after noting that while “[a] swift
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 8 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 5 of 9

24-10902 Opinion of the Court 5

change of heart is itself strong indication that the plea was entered
in haste and confusion,” the timing of the appellant’s motion sug-
gested that he “withdrew his plea in anticipation of a harsher sanc-
tion than that recommended in his plea agreement.” Gonzalez-Mer-
cado, 808 F.2d at 801.
“There is a strong presumption that the statements made
during [a plea] colloquy are true.” Medlock, 12 F.3d at 187. For this
reason, “when a defendant makes statements under oath at a plea
colloquy, he bears a heavy burden to show his statements were
false.” United States v. Rogers, 848 F.2d 166, 168 (11th Cir. 1988).
Issues not raised in an appellant’s initial brief are typically
deemed abandoned and will not be considered on appeal. United
States v. Campbell, 26 F.4th 860, 871 (11th Cir. 2022).
Here, the district court did not abuse its discretion by deny-
ing Lorquet’s motion. As to the first Buckles factor, Lorquet’s argu-
ment that he did not have close assistance of counsel fails because
he testified at his plea hearing that he discussed the plea agreement
and the case with his counsel. He also testified at his plea hearing
that he was satisfied with his counsel’s representation. Although
Lorquet testified at his evidentiary hearing that his counsel pres-
sured him into taking the plea, it was for the district court to decide
the credibility and weight of Lorquet’s assertions offered in support
of his motion to withdraw. Buckles, 843 F.2d at 472. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in adopting the magistrate judge’s
finding that Lorquet’s assertions that his counsel pressured him
were not credible and could not overcome his testimony from the
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 9 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 6 of 9

6 Opinion of the Court 24-10902

plea hearing because his testimony from the plea hearing is af-
forded a strong presumption of truth and his claims presented in
his motion and at his evidentiary hearing were vague and unsub-
stantiated. Medlock, 12 F.3d at 187.
As to the second Buckles factor, Lorquet’s argument that his
plea was not knowing and voluntary also fails. At the start of the
plea hearing, the magistrate judge stated that Lorquet was at the
hearing because he wanted to plead guilty and explained that it had
to ask him a series of questions to determine that his decision to
plead guilty was knowing and voluntary. Lorquet confirmed that
he understood the purpose behind the magistrate judge’s ques-
tions. After confirming that Lorquet had a chance to review the
agreement with his counsel, the magistrate judge explained the
agreement and its consequences to Lorquet. Lorquet informed the
magistrate judge that no one made any promises to him to per-
suade him to enter the plea agreement and further asserted that no
one threatened him in any way. Lorquet then confirmed that he
was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty.
At the evidentiary hearing, the only evidence Lorquet pro-
vided to show that his plea was not knowing and voluntary was his
testimony that (1) he had trouble reading and writing because of a
learning disability, (2) he felt “pressured and coerced” by his coun-
sel, and (3) he received threats from people telling him that he
“need[ed] to sign the plea or leave.”
Because Lorquet’s initial brief does not mention his claims
that he was threatened into accepting the plea, Lorquet abandoned
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 10 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 7 of 9

24-10902 Opinion of the Court 7

any challenge to the district court’s finding that these claims were
not credible. Campbell, 26 F.4th at 871. Because Lorquet’s initial
brief does not mention his claims that he did not know he was
pleading guilty because he has trouble reading and writing, Lor-
quet also abandoned any challenge to the district court’s finding
that these claims were not credible. Campbell, 26 F.4th at 871.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by adopting
the magistrate judge’s finding that Lorquet’s claims that his counsel
pressured him into accepting the plea were not credible because (1)
the claims contradicted his sworn testimony from the plea hearing,
which is afforded a strong presumption of truth, in which he stated
that he wanted to plead guilty and was satisfied with his counsel’s
representation; (2) the claims were vague; and (3) he did not pro-
vide any evidence outside of his testimony at the evidentiary hear-
ing to substantiate the claims. Medlock, 12 F.3d at 187.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by adopting
the magistrate judge’s finding that Lorquet’s allegation that his
counsel told him he could only say “yes” or “no” at the plea hearing
did not substantiate his claims that his counsel was ineffective or
that he acted under duress because, as the magistrate judge noted,
he still could have answered no when asked if he was satisfied with
his counsel’s advice or if he reviewed and understood the plea
agreement. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discre-
tion in finding that the plea was knowing and voluntary.
While Lorquet is correct that the decisions of Buckles and
Beasley discussed the testimony given by Buckles and Beasley’s
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 11 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 8 of 9

8 Opinion of the Court 24-10902

attorneys at their respective evidentiary hearings, neither case sup-
ports Lorquet’s position that the magistrate judge should have
credited his testimony from the evidentiary hearing simply because
it was the only witness testimony provided. See Beasley, No. 22-
13794, manuscript op. at 4; Buckles, 843 F.2d at 472.
Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in con-
cluding that Lorquet had the close assistance of counsel and en-
tered a knowing and voluntary plea, this Court does not have to
give considerable weight or attention to the third and fourth Buck-
les factors. See Gonzalez Mercado, 808 F.2d at 801. Even considering
those factors, if the plea was withdrawn the government would
have to prepare for trial as to Count 7 and this would arguably fail
to conserve judicial resources and prejudice the government.
Lorquet’s argument that the district court abused its discre-
tion because he first moved to withdraw his guilty plea one month
after it was accepted is also unpersuasive. In presenting this argu-
ment, Lorquet fails to mention that he filed his first motion to with-
draw on the same day he filed his objections to the PSI in which he
argued that the enhancement for obstruction of justice under
U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1 was not warranted and that he should have re-
ceived a reduction for accepting personal responsibility pursuant to
§ 3E1.1. He also fails to mention that he soon withdrew his first
motion and did not renew his request to withdraw his guilty plea
until his sentencing hearing, held over six months after his plea was
accepted, during which the court found that the § 3C1.1 enhance-
ment was warranted and that he would not receive a reduction for
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 12 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-1 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 9 of 9

24-10902 Opinion of the Court 9

acceptance of personal responsibility. As indicated in the magis-
trate judge’s R&R, these facts do not suggest that Lorquet had a
“swift change of heart,” but rather indicate that he wanted to avoid
or delay his sentencing as he was set to receive a higher sentence
than he anticipated or felt was appropriate given the application of
the § 3C1.1 enhancement. Gonzalez Mercado, 808 F.2d at 801.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the district court
is
AFFIRMED.
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 13 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-2 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 1 of 2

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

David J. Smith For rules and forms visit
Clerk of Court www.ca11.uscourts.gov

May 12, 2025

MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES

Appeal Number: 24-10902-HH ; 24-12230 -HH
Case Style: USA v. Andre Lorquet
District Court Docket No: 1:22-cr-20326-KMM-1

Opinion Issued
Enclosed is a copy of the Court's decision issued today in this case. Judgment has been entered
today pursuant to FRAP 36. The Court's mandate will issue at a later date pursuant to FRAP
41(b).

Petitions for Rehearing
The time for filing a petition for panel rehearing or rehearing en banc is governed by 11th Cir.
R. 40-2. Please see FRAP 40 and the accompanying circuit rules for information concerning
petitions for rehearing. Among other things, a petition for rehearing must include a
Certificate of Interested Persons. See 11th Cir. R. 40-3.

Costs
No costs are taxed.

Bill of Costs
If costs are taxed, please use the most recent version of the Bill of Costs form available on the
Court's website at www.ca11.uscourts.gov. For more information regarding costs, see FRAP 39
and 11th Cir. R. 39-1.

Attorney's Fees
The time to file and required documentation for an application for attorney's fees and any
objection to the application are governed by 11th Cir. R. 39-2 and 39-3.

Appointed Counsel
Counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) must submit a voucher claiming
compensation via the eVoucher system no later than 45 days after issuance of the mandate or
the filing of a petition for writ of certiorari. Please contact the CJA Team at (404) 335-6167 or
cja_evoucher@ca11.uscourts.gov for questions regarding CJA vouchers or the eVoucher
system.
Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 159 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2025 Page 14 of 14
USCA11 Case: 24-10902 Document: 57-2 Date Filed: 05/12/2025 Page: 2 of 2

OPIN-1 Ntc of Issuance of Opinion

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flsd.616975.159.0.pdf
Size: 199,625 bytes
SHA-256: cf88d424b83b51a00f0398a0c60f589dfe9d9c171205d660c53ea8ae9dfa7cf9
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flsd.616975.159.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)