Mozaffar appeals from judgment (Bryant, J.) sentencing him principally months’ imprisonment followed three year supervised release. guilty attempting defense articles Iran Arms Export Control Act (“AECA”), U.S.C. On appeal, his conviction should be vacated primarily because (1) guilty plea knowing voluntary, (2) improperly involved itself plea negotiations, (3) did allocute all elements charged offense. assume parties’ *3 familiarity with facts record prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary explain our decision to affirm. was initially indicted two counts interstate transportation

stolen property, in violation 18 U.S.C. § for transporting documents containing proprietary information about Air Force jet engines. later guilty a “Substitute Information” charging him only with violating Before accepting guilty plea, a district court must “inform defendant of, determine defendant understands . . . nature each charge which defendant pleading.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(b)(1)(G). Where, here, claim non compliance with Rule not made district court, we review plain error, which requires defendant show “a reasonable probability that, but error, he would have entered plea.” Pattee, F.3d (2d Cir. 2016) (quotation marks omitted). In conducting our review, we may consider “entire record,” merely defendant’s allocution. Maher, 1997). first mistakenly thought pleading guilty interstate transportation stolen property U.S.C. rather *4 than violation of the AECA. Our review of the following portions of the record suggests otherwise: (1) the plea agreement, (2) the stipulation of offense conduct attached that agreement, (3) Khazaee’s plea allocution, and (4) Government’s recitation charges against Khazaee during change plea hearing as involving “unlawful exports and attempted exports defense articles in Arms Export Control Act.” App’x 260, True, Government’s assertion that had “stole[n] and retained material” from former employers, id. at 270, Court’s focus “proprietary” nature that material, id. at were directly relevant any element But such “loose terminology,” Torrellas, 2006), does negate record whole, in which admitted during plea allocution that had “possession [the] control element that required [a] license that [he] didn’t have,” App’x exported those materials “shipment that supposed leave border [the] State[s],” specifically “[t]o Iran,” id. 311–12. Second, violated Rule 11(c)(1), which prohibits district courts from participating plea discussions. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1). There no plain error. The never advised or *5 encouraged Khazaee to plead guilty, see United States v. Davila, 133 S. Ct. 2139, 2147–48 (2013), discussed sentence it would impose if Khazaee guilty, see v. Werker, F.2d 198, (2d Cir. 1976), or otherwise exerted “pressure to settle” case “on terms favored judge,” Paul, F.3d (2d Cir. 2011). Nor do we discern error Court’s statement that would be entitled to three point reduction under Sentencing Guidelines only if he accepted responsibility charged offense. See U.S.S.G. 3E1.1.

Third, that he did not admit willfully violating are persuaded. “The ‘willfulness’ has generally, albeit uniformly, been interpreted referring knowledge that conduct question was wrongful or unlawful.” See Hopkins, F.3d 1995). admitted exported documents containing “information [that] illegal disclose,” App’x that, based on training restrictions, understood it illegal export information Iran, id. at 312. This admission satisfies AECA’s willfulness element. See Torrellas,

*6 1 have considered Khazaee’s remaining arguments conclude 2 they are without merit. For foregoing reasons, judgment 3 AFFIRMED.

4 THE COURT: 5 Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk