United States v. Eugenio Cerda, 18-41009

Cerda pleaded guilty to (1) conspiracy to possess 400 grams of fentanyl with intent to distribute (21 U.S.C. § 841/846) and (2) money‑laundering conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), (h)).
Before the plea, Cerda and the government filed a stipulated‑facts statement which Cerda confirmed at the change‑of‑plea hearing.
The stipulation said Cerda used couriers who traveled from Texas to Louisiana and elsewhere to collect drug‑sale proceeds, and that codefendant David Pantoja‑Orozco forwarded those proceeds to Mexico and was a “distributor and money launderer.”
The district court sentenced Cerda to concurrent 210‑month terms on each count (with concurrent supervised release terms); Cerda timely appealed, challenging only the factual basis for the § 1956 money‑laundering plea.
Cerda did not raise the factual‑basis objection below, so appellate review is for plain error; the government had substantial evidence of drug trafficking (seizures, controlled buys, wiretaps), and Cerda had two prior felony drug convictions that exposed him to a mandatory life sentence at trial under the then‑statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the record supplied an adequate factual basis for Cerda’s § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) plea (intent to conceal/disguise proceeds).	Stipulated facts (couriers collecting cash, Pantoja forwarding proceeds to Mexico, Pantoja labeled a money launderer) permit the reasonable inference Cerda used Pantoja to launder proceeds.	Stipulation contained no facts showing any plan or scheme to conceal or disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, or control of proceeds.	Affirmed. Court did not need to resolve whether plain error occurred because Cerda failed to show prejudice (no reasonable probability he would have refused the plea).
Whether any error (if present) was plain and prejudicial under plain‑error review.	Government: even if a deficiency existed, Cerda cannot show a reasonable probability he would have gone to trial given exposure to far greater penalties and strong evidence.	Cerda asserts the factual‑basis omission is a clear Rule 11(b)(3) error affecting his substantial rights.	Held for the government: Cerda didn’t demonstrate prejudice; relief denied.

United States v. Barton, 879 F.3d 595 (5th Cir. 2018) (Rule 11/plain‑error framework for plea‑basis claims)
United States v. Trejo, 610 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2010) (Rule 11(b)(3) requires court to ensure admitted facts establish the offense)
United States v. Pipkin, 114 F.3d 528 (5th Cir. 1997) (elements of § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i) include intent to conceal or disguise proceeds)
United States v. Ismoila, 100 F.3d 380 (5th Cir. 1996) (intent element may be proven by showing the transaction is part of a larger concealment scheme)
United States v. Alvarado‑Casas, 715 F.3d 945 (5th Cir. 2013) (plain‑error standard and prejudice for inadequate factual‑basis pleas)
United States v. Nepal, 894 F.3d 204 (5th Cir. 2018) (plain‑error review requires showing clear/obvious error affecting substantial rights)
Rosales‑Mireles v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 1897 (2018) (standard for correcting plain errors that affect fairness, integrity, or public reputation of proceedings)
United States v. London, 568 F.3d 553 (5th Cir. 2009) (no relief where defendant fails to show he would have declined plea and proceeded to trial)