United States v. Youngs, 687 F.3d 56

Youngs pleaded guilty to two counts of producing and possessing child pornography under a plea agreement.
Plea hearing included detailed Rule 11 colloquy describing sentences, supervised release, forfeiture, and Sex Offender Registration obligations.
Act permits civil commitment of a sexually dangerous person at end of incarceration, with a hearing and standard of clear and convincing evidence.
Civil commitment is not guaranteed; it would require certification and proof at a future time.
District court’s acceptance of the guilty plea did not inform Youngs of civil commitment risks because those risks are not direct consequences of a guilty plea.
Court affirmatively concluded the plea was knowing and voluntary.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether civil commitment under the Adam Walsh Act is a direct consequence of a guilty plea.	Youngs argues he should have been advised of civil commitment.	Youngs contends the district court failed to inform him of a direct consequence.	No; civil commitment is collateral, not a direct consequence.
Whether Padilla requires disclosure of civil commitment risks in guilty-plea proceedings.	Youngs invokes Padilla to expand due-process duties.	Padilla concerns deportation and Sixth Amendment counsel; not applicable to Rule 11/fifth amendment:**	Padilla does not render civil commitment disclosure mandatory under Rule 11 or due process in this context.

Wilson v. McGinnis, 413 F.3d 196 (2d Cir. 2005) (due process standard for knowing and voluntary guilty plea)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 ((1969)) (direct consequences for guilty pleas; collateral consequences need not be explained)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 ((1969)) (requirement of intelligent and voluntary plea)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 ((1969)) (Rule 11 purpose and plea allocution guidance)
Zhang v. United States, 506 F.3d 162 (2d Cir. 2007) (Rule 11 adequacy standards; voluntary/informed plea)
U.S. v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 ((2002)) (plain error review for Rule 11 violations)
U.S. v. Flaharty, 295 F.3d 182 (2d Cir. 2002) (plain-error standard in Rule 11 context)
U.S. v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556 (2d Cir. 1996) (definition of plain error and requirement of prejudice)
U.S. v. Salerno, 66 F.3d 544 (2d Cir. 1995) (collateral consequences need not be explained; direct consequences matter for plea validity)
U.S. Currency in the Amount of $228,536.00, 895 F.2d 908 (2d Cir. 1990) (civil penalties not a direct consequence of a guilty plea)
Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010) ( Sixth Amendment counsel; deportation context; direct/collateral distinction questioned)