United States v. Yousef Qattoum, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 11418

Qattoum owned and operated Little Rock stores selling synthetic cannabinoids (K2); law enforcement purchases and searches in 2012–2013 recovered products later confirmed to contain the analogue XLR-11.
He purchased inventory from out-of-state suppliers (e.g., iLCM, KC Incense) and paid with money orders; he instructed a buyer (Farishta) on suppliers, pricing, transaction methods to avoid detection, and how to hide the drugs.
Arrested federally in June 2013, charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and conspiracy to launder money; two distribution counts based on October 2012 buys were later dismissed as part of a plea agreement.
Qattoum fled to Mexico before trial, was returned, then pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement to the two conspiracy counts at a change-of-plea hearing where the government summarized facts and Qattoum admitted them.
After a co-defendant was acquitted, Qattoum sought to withdraw his plea, arguing the plea lacked an adequate factual basis (knowledge of illegality and agreement to launder); the district court denied the motion and sentenced him to 121 months.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed denial of the plea-withdrawal motion (abuse of discretion) and plain error as to one unpreserved claim, and affirmed.

Issue	Qattoum's Argument	Government's Argument	Held
Whether the guilty plea to conspiracy to distribute had an adequate factual basis	Plea lacked facts showing he knew K2 was illegal or that products contained controlled substances (XLR-11)	Record (gov’t proffer, admissions, PSR) provided circumstantial evidence of knowledge (prior arrest, resumed sales, instructions to avoid detection, flight)	Court held factual basis adequate; denial of withdrawal not an abuse of discretion
Whether the guilty plea to conspiracy to commit money laundering had an adequate factual basis	No facts at plea hearing showed an agreement with others to launder money	Government’s proffer that suppliers shipped product and Qattoum used money orders supported a tacit agreement to structure/avoid transaction records	Reviewed for plain error; court found the proffer sufficient to show at least tacit agreement; no plain error

United States v. Van Doren, 800 F.3d 998 (8th Cir. 2015) (standard for reviewing denial of motion to withdraw plea)
United States v. Gamble, 327 F.3d 662 (8th Cir. 2003) (adequate factual-basis standard)
United States v. Cheney, 571 F.3d 764 (8th Cir. 2009) (circumstantial evidence can support guilty plea)
United States v. Scharber, 772 F.3d 1147 (8th Cir. 2014) (sources courts may consider when assessing factual basis)
United States v. Brown, 331 F.3d 591 (8th Cir. 2003) (same)
McFadden v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2298 (2015) (knowledge element for § 841 requires awareness the substance was a controlled substance)
United States v. Ramos, 814 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 2016) (knowledge may be proven circumstantially)
United States v. Noibi, 780 F.2d 1419 (8th Cir. 1986) (discussing knowledge as general criminal intent)
United States v. Frook, 616 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review when plea-withdrawal arguments are not preserved)
United States v. Hudspeth, 525 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2008) (agreement for conspiracy may be shown by tacit understanding)