USA v. Moltimer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-60275-CR-DAMIAN/D’ANGELO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
vs.
MIRLANDE MOLTIMER,
Defendant.
________________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGE OF PLEA
THIS CAUSE is before the Court following the referral of this action to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge to conduct a proceeding for acceptance of a guilty plea by Defendant Mirlande
Moltimer (“Defendant”) (DE 18). Based upon the change of plea hearing conducted on December
12, 2025, the Court makes the following findings and recommends that the guilty plea be accepted.
1. 	The Court advised Defendant of the right to have these proceedings conducted by
the District Judge assigned to the case and that the Court was conducting the change of plea hearing
pursuant to an Order of Referral from the District Judge. 	The Court further advised Defendant
that the District Judge would be the sentencing judge and would make all findings and rulings
concerning Defendant’s sentence. The Court advised Defendant that she did not have to permit
the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct this hearing and could request that the change of plea
hearing be conducted by the District Judge. Defendant, who stated that she had discussed the right
to have the hearing conducted by the District Judge with her counsel, and the Assistant United
States Attorney consented on the record to the Court conducting the change of plea hearing.
Case 0:25-cr-60275-MD Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 1 of 5

2
2. 	Defendant was placed under oath and appeared in-person before the Court. 	The
plea colloquy was conducted in accordance with the outline set forth in the Bench Book for District
Judges and in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
3. 	Defendant was advised of her rights as set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 11(b)(1)(B)–(E), and she acknowledged that she understood those rights, discussed
them with her counsel, and is knowingly and voluntarily waiving them.
4. 	Defendant indicated she is knowingly and voluntarily pleading guilty to the sole
count in the Information, which charges the Defendant with Health Care Fraud Resulting in Death,
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1347 (DE 1). The Court advised Defendant
that the maximum penalty the Court may impose for this offense is life imprisonment, five (5)
years of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or gross loss resulting
from the offense. 	The Court further advised Defendant that, in addition to any term of
imprisonment and supervised release, the Court may order forfeiture and restitution and will assess
a mandatory special assessment of $100. 	Defendant acknowledged that she understood the
possible maximum penalties that could be imposed. Defendant also agreed to waive her right to
be indicted by the Grand Jury and proceed by way of Information.
5. 	Defendant acknowledged that she understands the Sentencing Guidelines and that
she has discussed with her counsel the calculation of the applicable Sentencing Guidelines range,
as well as other sentencing factors under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3553(a).
6. 	The Government and Defendant entered into a written plea agreement that was
thereafter filed with the Court (DE 20). 	The Court reviewed the terms of the written plea
agreement on the record. 	Defendant agreed that she had reviewed the entire agreement with
Case 0:25-cr-60275-MD Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 2 of 5

3
counsel before she signed it. 	Defendant also agreed that there were no other agreements or
promises beyond what is contained in the written plea agreement.
7. 	Defendant acknowledged that she agreed to the forfeiture of any property that
constitutes or is derived directly or indirectly from gross proceeds traceable to the offense, and
Defendant agreed to a forfeiture money in the sum of $25,402. Defendant acknowledged that she
will cooperate with the Government for the forfeiture and recovery of all assets identified by the
Government as subject to forfeiture. Defendant also acknowledged that she understood that she is
waiving all Constitutional, legal, and equitable defenses to the forfeiture, including excessive fines
under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and that she is waiving any
applicable time limits for forfeiture proceedings as well as the right to appeal the forfeiture. The
Court finds that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived her rights under the Eighth
Amendment, and the Court further finds that Defendant knowingly and voluntarily acknowledged
the waiver of her right to appeal the forfeiture.
8. 	Defendant acknowledged that she agreed to waive her rights to appeal her sentence,
unless the Court sentences Defendant above the maximum penalty prescribed by law, the Court
varies and/or departs upward from the top of the Sentencing Guidelines range applicable to
Defendant, or the Government appeals Defendant’s sentence. 	The Court finds that Defendant
knowingly and voluntarily waived her appellate rights.
9. 	To set forth the factual basis for the entry of the plea, the Government proffered the
facts it would have established at trial (DE 21). 	The Government established all the essential
elements of the crime to which Defendant is pleading guilty. Defendant and her counsel agreed
that the facts proffered by the Government were accurate and satisfied all elements of the sole
count in the Information.
Case 0:25-cr-60275-MD Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 3 of 5

4
10. 	Defendant acknowledged that she is satisfied with her counsel and that she has had
a full opportunity to discuss all facets of the case and all provisions of the plea agreement with her
counsel.
11. 	Defendant further acknowledged that she understands that in the event the District
Judge does not accept the recommendations in the plea agreement or sentences her to terms that
are greater than she anticipated, that will not be grounds for withdrawal of the guilty plea.
12. 	Defendant acknowledged that if she is convicted and is not a United States citizen,
she may be removed from the United States, denied citizenship, and denied admission to the United
States in the future.
13. 	Defendant stated that the decision to plead guilty is voluntary and not the result of
any force, any threats, or any promises outside of those set forth in the plea agreement.
14. 	Based upon all of the foregoing and the plea colloquy conducted by the Court, the
Court finds that Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that
Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, and that the plea
of guilty is a knowing and voluntary plea supported by an independent basis in fact containing
each of the essential elements of the offense.
15. 	Therefore, the undersigned recommends that Defendant be found to have freely and
voluntarily entered a guilty plea to the sole count in the Information filed in this case, as more
particularly described herein, and that Defendant be adjudicated guilty of that offense as charged.
16. 	A pre-sentence investigation report will be prepared for the District Court by the
United States Probation Office. The sentencing date will be set by separate order.
Case 0:25-cr-60275-MD Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 4 of 5

5
17. 	The Court announced the Recommendation herein on the record at the change of
plea hearing on December 12, 2025, and, therefore, this Recommendation is effective as of that
date.
As agreed to by the Government and Defendant at the change of plea hearing, the Parties
will have three (3) business days from the date of the change of plea hearing (up to December 17,
2025) within which to file written objections, if any, for consideration by the United States District
Judge. 	Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59(b), Eleventh Circuit Rule 3-1, and
accompanying Internal Operating Procedure 3, the Government and Defendant are hereby notified
that failure to object in accordance with Title 28, United States Code, Section 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, 155 (1985).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers in Miami, Florida on this 12th day of
December, 2025.
____________________________________
ELLEN F. D’ANGELO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	All Counsel of Record
Case 0:25-cr-60275-MD Document 23 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/15/2025 Page 5 of 5