UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 1:22-cr-20326-KMM-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

v. 

ANDRE LORQUET, 

Defendant. 

 / 

ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Defendant Andre Lorquet’s (“Defendant”) 

Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea. (ECF No. 85). The Court referred the Motion to the Honorable 

Lauren F. Louis, United States Magistrate Judge, who held a hearing on the Motion on October 

24, 2023 and October 31, 2023. See (ECF Nos. 86, 95, 96). On December 8, 2023, Magistrate 

Judge Louis issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Motion be 

DENIED. (ECF No. 99). Defendant filed timely objections to the R&R. (“Obj.”) (ECF No. 100). 

The Government filed a Response. (“Resp.”) (ECF No. 103). Defendant filed a Reply. (“Reply”) 

(ECF No. 104). The matter is now ripe for review.1 As set forth below, the Court ADOPTS the 

R&R.

I. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 

recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). 

The Court “must consider de novo any objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.” Fed. 

1 The Court assumes the Parties’ familiarity with the facts and procedural history, which are set 

forth in the R&R. See R&R at 1–7. 

Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 1 of 5
2

R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). A de novo review is therefore required if a party files “a proper, specific 

objection” to a factual finding contained in the report. Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 F. App’x 781, 

784 (11th Cir. 2006). “It is critical that the objection be sufficiently specific and not a general 

objection to the report” to warrant de novo review. Id.

II. DISCUSSION

As set forth in the R&R, Magistrate Judge Louis recommends that Defendant’s Motion to 

Withdraw Guilty Plea be denied. See generally R&R. Defendant generally objects to Magistrate 

Judge Louis’s findings and conclusions as set forth in the R&R. See Obj. at 2. To the extent that 

Defendant makes a specific objection R&R, he argues that Magistrate Judge Louis erred in finding 

that Defendant voluntarily pled guilty. See Obj. at 2; Reply at 1. Specifically, Defendant asserts 

that “he only pled guilty because he felt his back was against the wall. His lawyer had abandoned 

him as far as he was concerned. And he had been threatened by people who did not want his trial 

to expose their involvement in the loan fraud scheme with which Mr. Lorquet was charged.” Obj. 

at 2. Defendant also argues that newly discovered evidence provides a fair and just reason for 

withdrawal of his guilty plea as to Count 9, which charges Defendant with aggravated identity 

theft. See id. at 2–4.

The Court begins with Defendant’s first objection. At the outset, the Court notes that 

Defendant raised the same arguments in his Motion and at the evidentiary hearing, and Magistrate 

Judge Louis found them without merit. See generally R&R. Indeed, Defendant acknowledges 

that his objections “restate[] and advance[] the facts and arguments that he made in his motion to 

withdraw his guilty plea.” Obj. at 2. In any event, having carefully examined the totality of the 

circumstances surrounding Defendant’s plea in this case, this Court agrees with Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 2 of 5
3

Louis’s finding that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily pled guilty and that his Motion should 

be denied.

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).

As noted above, Magistrate Judge Louis determined that Defendant’s plea was entered 

knowingly and voluntarily. See R&R at 8–10 Magistrate Judge Louis did not credit Defendant’s 

claim that his lawyer would abandon him because Defendant “did not substantiate why he felt his 

back was up against a wall even if his retained counsel would not represent him at a trial; for 

example, he did not claim that he could not have retained new counsel or asked for appointed 

counsel.” Id. at 9. Similarly, Magistrate Judge Louis did not credit Defendant’s “vague” claim 

that someone threatened him not to go to trial because “[n]either the speaker nor the threat was 

Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 3 of 5
4

identified” and “nothing here would allow me to agree with his characterization that the 

communication, if it occurred at all, was in fact a threat.” Id. at 9–10. 

In his objections, Defendant does not explain why Magistrate Judge Louis’s findings are 

clearly erroneous, nor does he cite to any legal authority to support his arguments. See generally

Obj.; Reply. Further, Defendant has not argued, much less shown, that Magistrate Judge Louis’s 

credibility findings were “contrary to the laws of nature or inconsistent or improbable on their face 

such that no reasonable factfinder could accept them.” United States v. Roddy, No. 19-14787, 

2021 WL 5356005, at *7 (11th Cir. Nov. 17, 2021). Accordingly, after carefully considering 

Defendant’s arguments and the detailed factual findings in the R&R, Court overrules Defendant’s 

first objection.

In his second objection, Defendant assertsthat “newly discovered Brady evidence seriously 

challenges the notion that anyone used CD’s identity without her involvement in the fraudulent 

loan as alleged in connection with the aggravated identity theft offense charged in count 9.” Obj. 

at 4. In its Response, the Government acknowledges that it “has discovered and produced to the 

Defendant evidence from a separate investigation into COVID-relief that overlaps with the 

Defendant’s.” Resp. at 5. However, the Government argues that the Court should deny 

Defendant’s second objection as moot because “[t]he Government agrees to dismiss Count 9 of 

the indictment, which charges the Defendant with aggravated identity theft, at sentencing.” Id. In 

light of the Government agreeing to dismiss Count 9 of the Indictment at sentencing, the Court 

agrees that Defendant’s second objection is now moot. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the R&R, the Objections, the 

pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, the R&R (ECF 

Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 4 of 5
5

No. 99) is hereby ADOPTED. For the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Louis’s thorough and 

persuasive R&R, Defendant’s Motion to Withdraw Guilty Plea (ECF No. 85) is DENIED.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this _____ day of February, 

2024.

K. MICHAEL MOORE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

c: All counsel of record

9th

Case 1:22-cr-20326-KMM Document 106 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/09/2024 Page 5 of 5