United States v. Danhach, No. 14-20339 (5th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted by a jury of several criminal offenses relating to a scheme to steal and resell over-the-counter (OTC) medication, brand-name baby formula, and similar goods. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying the motion to suppress evidence found in his warehouse where defendant offered no evidence to rebut testimony or show that he withdrew his oral consent. Therefore, the consent and plain-view exceptions justified all of the observations used to obtain the search warrant. The court rejected defendant's argument that the search warrant was invalid under Franks v. Delaware where most of the alleged inaccuracies that defendant identifies are simply not misstatements or omissions. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err when it estimated the loss amount attributable to defendant's crimes to be $2,931,057.30, resulting in an eighteen-level enhancement, and the district court did not plainly err in imposing separate $100 special assessments for each of defendant's obstruction-of-justice convictions. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.