USA v. Hernandez Rosada et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-20196-CR-MARTINEZ
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CHRISTIAN HERNANDEZ,
Defendant.
/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON C HANGE OF PLEA
This matter came before the Court following an Order of Reference to conduct a change of
plea hearing for the Defendant, Christian Hernandez. ECF No. 44. The Court conducted a change
of plea hearing on this date, December 18, 2025, and, for the following reasons, it is recommended
that the Defendant’s plea of guilty be accepted:
1. 	At the outset of the change of plea hearing, the Defendant was advised that this
Court was conducting the change of plea hearing on an Order of Reference from the District Court.
The Defendant was further advised of his right to have these proceedings conducted by Judge
Martinez, the District Court Judge assigned to the case. 	The Court additionally advised the
Defendant that Judge Martinez would be the judge sentencing the Defendant 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
Case 1:25-cr-20196-JEM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2025 Page 1 of 4

2
attorney, and the Assistant United States Attorneys appearing for the government 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 Rule 11 of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure.
4. 	The parties entered into a written plea agreement, which they had with them at the
hearing and which was thereafter filed with the Court. ECF No. 59. The Court reviewed that plea
agreement on the record, and the Defendant acknowledged that he read and understood the
agreement, signed it, and agreed to its terms. The Defendant pled guilty to the crime of conspiracy
to commit promotional money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), as charged in the
sole count of the Information.
5. 	The parties also agreed to a written factual proffer, and that document was also with
them at the hearing and was later filed with the Court. ECF No. 58. The Defendant said that he
had read that factual proffer and agreed that it was accurate, and he confirmed that he signed the
document. 	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. 	The Court
reviewed the government’s factual proffer with the Defendant to assure that a factual basis existed
for the entry of the plea. 	The Defendant acknowledged his commission of the offense and
confirmed the accuracy of the factual proffer presented by the government in open court.
6. 	The Court also advised the Defendant of the possible maximum penalties, and the
Defendant acknowledged that he understood these possible penalties and the consequences of his
guilty plea, including potential immigration and removal consequences. The Court additionally
reviewed with the Defendant the provisions of the plea agreement that waive his rights to appeal
Case 1:25-cr-20196-JEM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2025 Page 2 of 4

3
his sentence, and the Defendant acknowledged that he had discussed the appeal waiver with his
lawyer and that he understood the waiver and the rights that he was waiving.
7. 	Based upon all the foregoing and the plea colloquy conducted by this Court, this
Court found that the Defendant was competent and capable of entering an informed plea, that he
freely, knowingly, and voluntarily entered his guilty plea, and that the plea was supported by an
independent basis in fact containing each of the essential elements of the offense. It is therefore
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 the Information.
8. 	A pre-sentence investigation report is being prepared. 	The parties were also
informed that Judge Martinez will set the sentencing hearing by separate Order.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court RECOMMENDS that the Defendant’s plea of guilty be
accepted; that the Defendant be adjudicated guilty as to the offense charged in the sole count of
the Information, to which he has entered his plea of guilty; and that a sentencing hearing be
conducted for final disposition of this matter.
As discussed with the parties at the change of plea hearing, the parties shall have until
Tuesday, December 23, 2025, within which to file objections, if any, to this Report and
Recommendation with the Honorable Jose E. Martinez, United States District Judge. 	If a party
chooses not to file objections, that party MUST file a Notice of Non-objection to the Report and
Recommendation on Change of Plea within the deadline set forth above. 	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); 11th Cir. R. 3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474
Case 1:25-cr-20196-JEM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2025 Page 3 of 4

4
U.S. 140 (1985); United States v. Lewis, 492 F.3d 1219, 1222 (11th Cir. 2007) (en banc).
RESPECTFULLY RECOMMENDED in Miami, Florida, this 18th day of December 2025.
___________________________________
EDUARDO I. SANCHEZ
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: 	Hon. Jose E. Martinez
Counsel of record
Case 1:25-cr-20196-JEM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/18/2025 Page 4 of 4