USA v. Riggs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 25-CR-60038-DAMIAN/VALLE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
DANIEL JAMES RIGGS,
Defendant.
_______________________________/
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON CHANGE OF PLEA
THIS CAUSE came before the undersigned for a change of plea hearing as to Defendant
Daniel James Riggs (“Defendant”). See (ECF No. 56) (“Order of Referral”). Having held the
change of plea hearing on November 17, 2025, the undersigned makes the following findings and
recommends that the guilty plea be accepted.1 See (ECF No. 58).
1. At the change of plea hearing, the undersigned advised Defendant that the
undersigned was conducting the change of plea pursuant to an Order of Referral from the District
Judge. The undersigned 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 he did not have to permit the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
to conduct this hearing and could request that the change of plea be conducted by the District
Judge. Defendant, his attorney, and the Assistant United States Attorney all consented to the
undersigned conducting the change of plea hearing.
1 This Report and Recommendation summarizes the Court’s oral findings at the change of plea
hearing. The audio recording of the proceeding is incorporated by reference.
Case 0:25-cr-60038-MD Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2025 Page 1 of 4

2
2. The undersigned conducted a detailed plea colloquy in accordance with Federal
Rule of Criminal Procedure 11.
3. After being advised of his rights and the possible consequences of his plea of guilty,
Defendant pled guilty to Counts 3 and 4 of the Superseding Indictment, which charge him with
coercion and enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 2422(b). See (ECF No. 43). The undersigned advised Defendant that the Court must impose a
minimum term of imprisonment of ten years and up to life, followed by a minimum term of
supervised release of five years and up to life, on each Count. In addition to any term of
imprisonment, the Court may impose a fine of up to $250,000 on each Count. Further, the Court
will assess a mandatory special assessment of $100 per Count, which is to be paid at the time of
sentencing. Defendant was also informed of his obligations regarding forfeiture and restitution.
Defendant acknowledged that he understood the nature of the charges and the potential penalties
and collateral consequences of his conviction in this case.
4. Additionally, Defendant was informed of the Sentencing Guidelines and the fact
that the District Judge may sentence Defendant to a more severe sentence than recommended by
the Government or estimated under the Sentencing Guidelines, up to the maximum statutory
sentence, and that Defendant could not withdraw his plea based solely on the sentence imposed by
the District Judge.
5. To establish the factual basis for the entry of the plea, the Government proffered
the facts it would have established at trial. See (ECF No. 60) (“Factual Proffer”). The Factual
Proffer was introduced as Government’s Exhibit 2 and signed by Defendant and his counsel. Id.
The Government established all the essential elements of the crimes to which Defendant is
Case 0:25-cr-60038-MD Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2025 Page 2 of 4

3
pleading guilty. Defendant acknowledged that the facts proffered by the Government were
accurate, and defense counsel agreed that the proffer satisfied all elements of the crimes charged.
6. The parties entered into a written plea agreement that was filed with the Court and
introduced as Government’s Exhibit 1. See (ECF No. 59) (“Plea Agreement”). The undersigned
reviewed the terms of that Plea Agreement on the record, and Defendant acknowledged that he
had reviewed the entire agreement with counsel before he voluntarily signed it.
7. The undersigned questioned Defendant regarding the effectiveness of his counsel’s
representation. Defendant stated that he was satisfied with his attorney and that he has had the
opportunity to discuss all facets of his case, including the evidence against him, with his attorney.
Defendant also stated that counsel has answered all his questions regarding the case.
8. Based upon the foregoing facts and the plea colloquy conducted by this Court, the
undersigned finds that Defendant is fully competent and capable of entering an informed plea,
Defendant is aware of the nature of the charges and the consequences of the plea, and 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 offenses.
9. Therefore, the undersigned recommends that Defendant be found to have freely and
voluntarily entered his guilty plea to Counts 3 and 4 of the Superseding Indictment filed in this
case, as more particularly described above, and that Defendant be adjudicated guilty of the offenses
as charged.
10. A Pre-Sentence Investigation Report should be prepared for the District Court by
the United States Probation Office. The sentencing hearing will be set by separate Order from the
District Judge.
Case 0:25-cr-60038-MD Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2025 Page 3 of 4

4
Within three days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation,
any party may serve and file written objections to any of the above findings and
recommendations.2 Failure to timely object waives the right to challenge on appeal the District
Court’s order based on unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions contained in this Report and
Recommendation. 11th Cir. R. 3-1 (2025); Fed. R. Crim. P. 59(b)(2); see Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140 (1985).
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Florida, on
November 18, 2025.
____________________________________
ALICIA O. VALLE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: U.S. District Judge Melissa Damian
All Counsel of Record
2 All parties consented to the abbreviated objection period and indicated that they did not intend
to file any objections.
Case 0:25-cr-60038-MD Document 61 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/18/2025 Page 4 of 4