USA v. Jair Daniel Barroeta Espinoza et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 25-20133-CR-MIDDLEBROOKS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JAIR DANIEL BARROETA ESPINOZA,
Defendant.
__________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGE OF PLEA
This matter was before the Court following on Order of Reference to conduct a
proceeding for acceptance of a guilty plea by the Defendant in the case. 	The Court
having conducted a change of plea hearing on this date, it is recommended that the
Defendant’s change of plea be accepted for the following reasons:
1. 	The Court convened a hearing to permit the Defendant to enter a change
of plea in his case. At the outset of the hearing, Defendant was advised of his right to
have these proceedings conducted by the District Judge assigned to the case.
Further, the Defendant was advised that this Court was conducting the change of
plea hearing on an Order of Reference from the District Court and at the request of
the Defendant, the Defendant’s attorney and the Assistant United States Attorney
assigned to this case. 	The Court further advised the Defendant that the District
Case 1:25-cr-20133-DMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 1 of 4

Judge assigned to this case would be the sentencing judge and would make all
findings and rulings concerning the Defendant’s sentence and would conduct a
sentencing hearing at a time set by the District Court.
2. 	The Defendant was made aware that he did not have to permit the
undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to conduct this hearing and could
request that the change of plea hearing be conducted only by a United States District
Judge. 	The Defendant, the Defendant’s attorney and the Assistant United States
Attorney assigned to the case all agreed on the record and consented to this Court
conducting the change of plea hearing.
3. 	The Court conducted a plea colloquy in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P.
11.
4. 	The parties entered into a written plea agreement in this case, which
was marked as Exhibit A to the hearing. 	The Defendant agreed to plead guilty to
Count 	1 	of 	the 	Indictment, 	charging 	him 	with 	conspiracy 	to 	commit 	money
laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, 1956. 	The government
agreed to seek dismissal of the remaining counts (2 – 8) of the Indictment after
sentencing.
5. 	The government stated on the record a factual basis for the entry of the
plea that included all the essential elements of the offense to which the Defendant is
pleading guilty and any sentencing enhancements and/or aggravating factors that
may 	be 	applicable. 	Specifically, 	the 	Court 	reviewed 	with 	Defendant 	the
government’s factual proffer, which the Defendant agreed to, filed as Exhibit B to the
Case 1:25-cr-20133-DMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 2 of 4

hearing, to assure that a factual basis existed for the entry of the plea. 	The
Defendant assented to the accuracy of the proffer and Defendant acknowledged his
participation in the offense. The Court also reviewed with Defendant the possible
minimum 	and/or 	maximum 	penalties. 	The 	Defendant 	acknowledged 	that 	he
understood these possible penalties and consequences, including the maximum
sentence of twenty years imprisonment.
6. 	Based upon all the foregoing and the plea colloquy conducted by this
Court, it is recommended that the Defendant be found to have freely and voluntarily
entered his guilty plea as more particularly described herein and that the Defendant
be adjudicated guilty of the offense charged in Count 1 of the Indictment.
7. 	A pre-sentence investigation is being prepared. 	Sentencing shall be set
by separate Order.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court recommends that the Defendant’s plea of guilty
be accepted, the Defendant be adjudicated guilty as to Count 1 of the Indictment to
which he has entered his plea of guilty, and that a sentencing hearing be conducted
for final disposition of this matter. 	The parties shall have three (3) business days
from the date of this Report and Recommendation within which to file objections, if
any, with the Honorable Donald M. Middlebrooks, United States District Judge.
Failure to file timely objections waives a party’s right to review issues related to the
Defendant’s plea under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 before the District Judge or the Court of
Appeals (even under a plain error standard). 	See Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(1), (2);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Lewis, 492 F.3d 1219, 1222 (11th
Cir. 2007) (en banc).
Case 1:25-cr-20133-DMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 3 of 4

DONE AND SUBMITTED this 27th day of January, 2026, at Miami, Florida.
/s/ Edwin G. Torres
EDWIN G. TORRES
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 1:25-cr-20133-DMM Document 156 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/27/2026 Page 4 of 4