United States v. Aybar-Peguero, 72 F.4th 478

Aybar-Peguero ran a Waterbury convenience store used in part to traffic ~1 kg heroin and 400 g fentanyl; police seized drugs, scales, and a concealed compartment.
He maintained business and personal bank accounts; investigators concluded he deposited drug proceeds into those accounts commingled with legitimate receipts.
He pleaded guilty to drug distribution conspiracy (21 U.S.C. §§ 841, 846) and concealment money laundering (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)).
At the plea hearing (with a Spanish-English interpreter), he admitted depositing drug proceeds but repeatedly stated his purpose was to save money and to commingle with legitimate earnings, and he did not acknowledge an intent to conceal the funds’ source.
The magistrate judge recommended acceptance of the plea; the district court accepted it and sentenced him. The PSR (prepared after the plea hearing but before judgment) asserted concealment but did not clearly establish mens rea.
On appeal, Aybar-Peguero argued the plea lacked a sufficient factual basis under Rule 11(b)(3) for the concealment mens rea; the Second Circuit vacated the § 1956 conviction and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record at the plea hearing provided a sufficient factual basis under Rule 11(b)(3) that Aybar-Peguero acted with the purpose to conceal the proceeds (mens rea of § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i)).	Government: defendant’s admissions, the information/plea agreement, and later PSR supplied the factual basis; commingling supports concealment purpose.	Aybar-Peguero: he never admitted a concealment purpose; his statements show saving/commingling, not an intent to hide the source; post-plea PSR cannot cure the deficiency.	Court vacated the § 1956 conviction: plea record lacked an admission or on-record evidence of the required concealment purpose; post-plea materials cannot be relied on to satisfy Rule 11(b)(3); error was plain and prejudicial.

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (establishes importance of defendant’s open-court admission to support plea)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (Rule 11 aims to produce a complete record at plea entry)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (court must develop factual basis on the record)
Irizarry v. United States, 508 F.2d 960 (2d Cir.) (post-plea materials may not be used to supply factual basis missing from plea hearing)
United States v. Garcia, 587 F.3d 509 (2d Cir.) (concealment element requires proof of purpose to conceal, not merely effect)
United States v. Maher, 108 F.3d 1513 (2d Cir.) (court must assure conduct admitted satisfies statutory elements)
United States v. Adams, 448 F.3d 492 (2d Cir.) (factual basis must be on the record at time of plea)
United States v. Lloyd, 901 F.3d 111 (2d Cir.) (discusses Rule 11 and plea-challenge preservation; noted tension on post-plea PSR use)
United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (sets prejudice standard for vacating guilty plea under plain-error review)