Yang v. United States

Background

Pai Yang, representing himself, pleaded guilty to promotional money laundering under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(A) and was sentenced principally to 70 months in prison. The indictment also charged conspiracy to commit money laundering, but that count was dismissed under the plea agreement. The court signed a forfeiture order as part of the sentence, and the Second Circuit later affirmed the judgment.

During the plea hearing, the magistrate judge correctly explained that the government had to prove Yang intended to promote the specified unlawful activity. The magistrate judge also incorrectly said that the government had to prove Yang intended to conceal the proceeds, even though concealment was not an element of the count to which Yang pleaded guilty. Yang nevertheless confirmed that he understood the elements described and admitted that he knew the money involved drug proceeds and that he intended to conceal them.

Claims and governing standard

Yang filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a procedure that allows a federal prisoner to seek correction of a sentence imposed in violation of federal law or the Constitution. He argued that his counsel was ineffective by failing to explain that he was pleading guilty to promotional rather than concealment money laundering, failing to object to the magistrate judge’s erroneous explanation, failing to object to forfeiture at sentencing, and failing to research or raise entrapment.

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, Yang had to show both that his lawyer’s performance fell below reasonable professional standards and that the deficient performance caused prejudice. In the guilty-plea context, prejudice required a reasonable probability that Yang would not have pleaded guilty and instead would have gone to trial.

No hearing

The court concluded that no hearing was required because the written submissions, including an affidavit from Yang’s lawyer, were enough to resolve the claims. The court found that additional testimony would not meaningfully add to the record.

Guilty-plea claims

The court did not decide whether counsel’s performance was unreasonable because Yang could not show prejudice. The court found that the plea agreement gave Yang significant benefits: dismissal of the conspiracy count, full credit for accepting responsibility, and a limited loss amount. The court also found that the government’s case was strong based on Yang’s statements and conduct, including his claimed money-laundering business, his movement of funds after being told they were connected to narcotics trafficking, and his use of a currency-counting machine that counted more than $400,000 in non-government funds. The government also could have prosecuted the dismissed conspiracy count.

The court therefore held that Yang had not shown that the alleged errors caused him to plead guilty rather than go to trial. The court also did not address the forfeiture challenge because it held that § 2255 cannot be used for collateral challenges to noncustodial punishments, including forfeiture orders.

Entrapment claim

Entrapment is an affirmative defense requiring government inducement and a lack of predisposition to commit the crime. The court held that counsel reasonably declined to pursue the defense. The record showed that Yang had already held himself out as an international money launderer, said he had clients involved in narcotics trafficking who wanted money moved, and moved money for undercover law enforcement on several occasions for a fee. The court concluded that counsel acted reasonably in researching entrapment, discussing it with Yang, advising him that the defense would fail, and not pursuing it further.

Disposition

The court DENIED Yang’s § 2255 motion. It declined to issue a certificate of appealability because Yang had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, so Yang could not proceed without paying the applicable appeal costs.