United States v. Hanna, 661 F.3d 271

Background

Hanna convicted on multiple counts for shipping telecommunications equipment to Iraq in violation of IEEPA and embargoes; district court denied suppression and admitted confidential materials under a protective order.
Warrants were issued June 22, 2004 based on ICE Agent Wallace’s affidavit; searches targeted TIGS premises and Hanna’s AOL account, yielding emails and records used at trial.
Hanna challenged the warrants as overbroad and the affidavit as containing omissions; the district court denied suppression after an in-depth hearing.
Defense sought to exclude testimony of Juan Otero; the district court excluded as irrelevant; trial proceeded with Hanna convicted on all but one count.
Sentencing used money laundering guidelines (2S1.1) and involved an alleged national-security enhancement; the district court erred in the underlying offense calculation but Hanna’s invited-error defense limited reversal.
Hanna moved for a new trial based on newly discovered information (Attar and Al-Yawer) and Brady claims; district court denied; on appeal the Sixth Circuit affirmed, concluding no Brady or material new-trial showing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Probable cause validity of the warrants	Franks challenge to misstatements/omissions in Wallace affidavit	Alleged misstatement about Al-Aly and non-letter trash item tainted probable cause	Probable cause sustained; omissions not material and not presumptively misleading
Overbreadth of the TIGS and AOL warrants	Warrants allowed an all-records search beyond foreign-trade focus	Warrants tailored via categories and time to the complex scheme	TIGS warrant not overbroad; AOL warrant harmless error
Admissibility of Otero testimony	Otero testimony explains others were duped similarly and is probative	Unrelated Stratex matters and hearsay; not probative of Hanna	Exclusion affirmed; not an abuse of discretion; harmless
National-security sentencing enhancement under § 2S1.1(b)(1)(iii)	No evidence Hanna knew funds derived from a national-security offense	Embargo violation inherently involves national security; enhancement warranted	upheld; affirmed that enhancement applied given knowledge of embargo and funds’ source
Appropriate sentencing guideline for IEEPA embargo violation	Appendix A requires § 2M5.1 guidance for embargo violations; § 2S1.1 was misapplied	Invited error prevents reversal; district court acted on Hanna’s urging	Error acknowledged but not reversible due to invited error; correct base would be § 2M5.1
New trial/ Brady claims	Newly discovered CIA involvement evidence would alter outcome; Brady disclosure required	Evidence not exculpatory or material; no Brady violation	No Brady or material new-trial warrant; district court’s denial affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (Supreme Court 1978) (false statements or omissions may negate a warrant when material to probable cause)
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court 1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause)
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (Supreme Court 1971) (particularity and scope of warrants)
United States v. Henderson, 416 F.3d 686 (8th Cir. 2005) (limits on electronic searches; tailoring of warrants)
United States v. Logan, 250 F.3d 350 (6th Cir. 2001) (scope of warrants and evidence admissibility when overbreadth exists)
United States v. Meeks, 290 Fed. Appx. 896 (6th Cir. 2008) (relevance and scope of electronic evidence searches)
Ables v. Meeks, 167 F.3d 1021 (6th Cir. 1999) (liberal relevancy standard; search and seizure limitations)
Warshak v. United States, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (standards for obtaining contents of emails; Stored Communications Act considerations)
United States v. Elashyi, 554 F.3d 480 (5th Cir. 2008) (national-security embargo violations and related guidelines)
Ford v. County of Grand Traverse, 535 F.3d 483 (6th Cir. 2008) (invited error doctrine in appellate review of trial/ sentencing rulings)