Satamian

MEMORANDUM *

For the reasons expressed in our memorandum disposition in the companion case of United States v. Manukian, 16 Fed. Appx. 715 (9th Cir.2001), we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Satamian’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The plea colloquy with Satamian was also sufficient to satisfy Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c), which requires a court to inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands, “the nature of the charge to which the plea is offered.”

We do find, however, that the district court committed error under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(f), which requires a court to satisfy itself that there is a factual basis for the plea, or, in other words, that the factual conduct to which the defendant admits is sufficient to constitute a violation of the charged statute. Although a court may consider all of the evidence before it to establish the factual basis for purposes of Rule 11(f), United States v. Alber, 56 F.3d 1106, 1110 (9th Cir.1995), in this case that basis is lacking. The aiding and abetting statute provides that a person who “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” the…