United States v. Han

105 F.4th 986

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Huazhi HAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 23-1020

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit

Argued May 20, 2024

Decided June 28, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18-cr-00388 — Andrea R. Wood, Judge.

Georgia Alexakis, Alexandra N. Morgan, Attorneys, Office of the United States Attorney, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Beau B. Brindley, Attorney, Law Offices of Beau B. Brindley, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before Flaum, Brennan, and Kolar, Circuit Judges.

Flaum, Circuit Judge.

A jury convicted Huazhi Han on money laundering and related charges after he used his electronic goods business to launder drug proceeds for Mexican drug traffickers. Han now argues that he is entitled to a new trial, challenging the district court's denial of his motion to suppress, admission of threat evidence, and denial of his motion for a mistrial based on the government's closing argument. Finding no error, we affirm.

I. Background

A. Factual Background

In 2017, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Chicago Police Department (CPD) began investigating a money laundering organization in Chicago. Han played a key role in that organization.

On at least eight occasions in the summer and fall of 2017, Rafiq Roman, a drug trafficker, delivered cash proceeds from his kilogram-quantity cocaine dealing to Han. Each delivery followed the same script. Once Roman collected over $100,000, he contacted "Tio"—his Mexico-based drug source—who provided the phone number for an individual identified as "Sam"—actually Han—and a dollar bill serial number. Roman would then call Sam, verifying his identity using the serial number, to arrange a cash transfer.

In November 2017, officers arrested Roman, and he agreed to cooperate. He contacted Tio and, as before, Tio gave Roman a serial number and Sam's phone number. Roman, in turn, called the number and arranged for a meeting the next day. With DEA agents and CPD officers surveilling, Roman delivered $100,000 in lookalike currency to Han. Soon after, the officers stopped and arrested Han, finding a loaded firearm, approximately $200,000 in cash, and the lookalike currency in his car.

With Han detained, several officers went to his home. A security camera at Han's residence captured most, but not all, of what happened next. Two CPD officers—Jennifer Przybylo and Carlos Huertas—approached Han's front door, knocking loudly, and ringing the doorbell. Han's wife, Jing Wang, came to the door but did not immediately open it. When Przybylo asked Wang to open the door, she did. Przybylo and Huertas stepped through the open doorway, remaining at the entry as they spoke to Wang.

The officers told Wang that her husband was in custody, and that he had agreed to let them search the house. (As the district court later found, Han did not consent to the search.) Then, there is a 24-second gap in the footage. According to Przybylo, the missing footage showed her explaining that Han was okay, but that police found a gun and large sum of money when they arrested him. The video resumes with Przybylo telling Wang that they need to confirm there are not guns in the home because guns could be "very dangerous for [Wang's] baby." Huertas then asked Wang, "Do you want to grab the baby," to which Wang responded, "No, he's sleeping."

After this exchange, there is another gap in the recording, this time two minutes long. Przybylo maintains that, during the gap, she asked Wang for verbal consent to search the home and Wang agreed. After the second gap, the recording captured Wang telling Przybylo that her "English is not very well [sic]," and Przybylo responding, "That's okay."

Huertas soon moved past Wang into the living room, asking Wang to show him where the baby slept. Przybylo added, "Yeah, show us where he sleeps, okay? We want to make sure there's no more guns there." Huertas, Przybylo, and Wang then walked out of the video frame followed by several other officers.

Roughly thirty minutes into the search, Przybylo asked Wang to sign a written consent form, and she complied. Toward the end of the search, one of the DEA agents informed Wang that her vehicle would be seized in connection with the investigation. But Wang pushed back, explaining that she needed the car to pick her older son up from school, and the officers acquiesced.

Ultimately, the officers recovered nearly $1.3 million in cash, a money counter, rubber bands, and firearms from Han's home. However, Han was not charged with a crime. Instead, he was released, and the investigation continued.

Han kept laundering money, this time with Jason Mei. On several occasions in the spring of 2018, Mei picked up drug proceeds from unknown individuals and delivered them to Han, giving him directions to wire equivalent amounts of money to various Chinese bank accounts.

In June 2018, police arrested Mei and he also agreed to cooperate. Under police surveillance, Mei met with Han to arrange dropping off drug proceeds to clean. This discussion triggered Han to transfer money to Chinese bank accounts in anticipation of the exchange. When Mei did not immediately deliver the cash, Han sent threatening messages and even visited Mei's home. Eventually, Mei delivered $192,000 to Han. After the hand-off, officers stopped Han, seizing the cash from his vehicle.

B. Procedural Background

A grand jury subsequently indicted Han on four charges: (1) conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); (2) money laundering by concealment, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i); (3) conducting a financial transaction represented to involve proceeds from unlawful activity, 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3)(B); and (4) operating an unlicensed money transmitting business, 18 U.S.C. § 1960(a).

Before trial, Han moved to suppress the evidence seized from the November 2017 search, arguing that the officers searched his home without a warrant or consent. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the motion. While the district court found that Han did not voluntarily consent to the search, it determined, under the totality of the circumstances, that Wang did.

The case then proceeded to a jury trial in March 2022. Over several weeks, the government called more than a dozen witnesses, including Roman, Mei, and the officers involved in the investigation. Two issues from trial are relevant on appeal. First, during Mei's testimony, the district court admitted, over Han's objection, evidence that Han threatened Mei and his family. Second, during closing arguments, the government referenced Han's inability to identify certain text message recipients.

The jury convicted Han on all counts and this appeal followed.

II. Discussion

Han makes three challenges on appeal. He contends that the district court erred when (1) denying his motion to suppress, (2) admitting the threat evidence, and (3) denying his motion for a mistrial based on the government's closing remarks. We take each in turn.

A. Motion to Suppress

"When reviewing a district court's denial of a motion to suppress, we review the court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error." United States v. Jones, 22 F.4th 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2022).

"Consent is a well-recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement" that "[t]he prosecution bears the burden of proving" was "freely and voluntarily given." Id. at 675-76 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Han does not dispute that Wang, "a co-resident in the shared home, had authority to give consent to the . . . search[ ]." United States v. Davis, 44 F.4th 685, 688 (7th Cir. 2022), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 143 S. Ct. 1758, 215 L.Ed.2d 653 (2023); see also United States v. Terry, 915 F.3d 1141, 1145 (7th Cir. 2019). Nor does he contest that Wang consented. Instead, he argues that Wang's consent was not voluntary, necessitating suppression of the fruits of the search.

"Whether consent was voluntary is a factual determination reviewed for clear error." Jones, 22 F.4th at 675. In assessing voluntariness, courts look to the totality of the circumstances, including "(1) the person's age, intelligence, and education; (2) whether he was advised of his constitutional rights; (3) how long he was detained before he gave his consent; (4) whether his consent was immediate, or was prompted by repeated requests by the authorities; (5) whether any physical coercion was used; and (6) whether the individual was in police custody when he gave his consent." United States v. Ambriz-Villa, 28 F.4th 786, 790 (7th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Figueroa-Espana, 511 F.3d 696, 704-05 (7th Cir. 2007)). "No single factor controls." Jones, 22 F.4th at 676.

As the district court found, several factors weigh in favor of voluntariness. Wang is 40 years old and attended college in the United States. She was not in custody or detained, consenting soon after opening the door and almost immediately upon the officers' request. Moreover, while Wang was not informed of her constitutional right to refuse consent, it is undisputed that the officers did not use or threaten the use of physical force; as the district court noted, they spoke in conversational tones throughout the interaction. And, despite Wang's assertion that her English is limited, she effectively communicated with the officers during the search, pushing back on their attempt to seize her car and request to bring her sleeping child downstairs. Viewing these factors in the totality of the circumstances, we do not think that the district court clearly erred when finding that they tip the scales in favor of voluntary consent.

Nonetheless, Han presses that Wang did not voluntarily consent because the officers (1) indicated that Han had already consented, (2) suggested that guns in the home posed a threat to Wang's child, and (3) stepped inside the house before obtaining Wang's consent.

...