United States v. Yang
19-734
| 2d Cir. | Jul 28, 2021Background
- Defendant Pai Yang pleaded guilty to money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(A) and was sentenced principally to 70 months' imprisonment.
- Yang argued on appeal that the magistrate judge misstated the elements during the Rule 11 plea colloquy by adding language about "conceal or disguise" and thus the plea lacked a proper factual basis.
- He also argued his plea was unsupported by facts showing intent to "promote" narcotics activity (as required for § 1956(a)(3)(A)), and separately asserted ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The Court reviewed the plea acceptance for plain error because Yang did not raise Rule 11 objections below.
- The record showed Yang admitted laundering over $250,000 he believed were drug proceeds; the government proffered that he held himself out as having international narcotics contacts and offered to connect traffickers.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: the colloquy error was not prejudicial, the record supplied an adequate factual basis for promotional intent, and the ineffective-assistance claim was reserved for § 2255 collateral review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether magistrate's added "conceal or disguise" language in allocution invalidated plea | N/A (government urges plea valid) | Yang: extra language misstated elements and thus plea acceptance was erroneous | Error was harmless under plain-error review; Yang's substantial rights not affected |
| Whether the record contained a sufficient factual basis for intent to "promote" narcotics activity under § 1956(a)(3)(A) | Government: plea, admissions, and sentencing proffer support promotional intent | Yang: his colloquy admissions referenced only "concealment," not promotion | Record (admissions + proffer + unrebutted facts) established an adequate factual basis for promotional intent |
| Whether ineffective assistance of counsel can be resolved on direct appeal | Government: merits undeveloped; should be raised on § 2255 | Yang: trial counsel ineffective during plea process | Court declined to decide on direct appeal and left claim for § 2255 proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Rodriguez, 725 F.3d 271 (2d Cir.) (plain-error review of Rule 11 challenges)
- United States v. Torrellas, 455 F.3d 96 (2d Cir.) (Rule 11 and allocution error precedents)
- Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74 (Sup. Ct.) ("reasonable probability" standard for plea prejudice)
- Greer v. United States, 141 S. Ct. 2090 (Sup. Ct.) (plain-error test applied to plea-colloquy errors)
- United States v. Thorn, 317 F.3d 107 (2d Cir.) (definition and proof required for "promote" in promotional laundering)
- United States v. Piervinanzi, 23 F.3d 670 (2d Cir.) (actions integral to illegal scheme can constitute "promotion")
- United States v. Nektalov, 461 F.3d 309 (2d Cir.) (government sting convictions valid where defendant believed funds were illegal proceeds)
- United States v. Moore, 703 F.3d 562 (D.C. Cir.) (allocution error harmless where no substantial prejudice shown)