### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30683 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff–Appellee,

v. THOMPSON W. CHINWOH, Defendant–Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:10-CR-81-1

Before DENNIS, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Thompson W. Chinwoh entered a co nditional guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. Prior to th e p l e a , Chinwoh sought to suppress all items seized in a search pursuant to a warrant of the premises of Medical Supplies of Baton Rouge (MSBR). C h i n w o h argued that the evidence should be suppressed because the search was conducted pursuant to an invalid general search warrant. The district court denied the m o tion and found “that the warrant was not a general warrant and was sufficiently specific and U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D May14 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30683 Document: 00511854835 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/14/2012No. 11-30683

particularized.” In entering his plea, Chinwoh reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. When a search has been conducted in accordance with a warrant, we use

a two-part test to review th e di s trict court’s denial of a motion to suppress. United States v. Froman , 355 F.3d 882, 888 (5th Cir. 2004). If th e go o d

- faith exception applies, no further analysis is necessary unless the case involves “a ‘novel question of law,’ resolution of which is ‘necessary to guide future action by law enforcement officers and magistrates.’” United St a tes v. Payne , 341 F.3d 393, 399 (5th Cir. 2003) (citing United States v. Pena-Rodriguez , 110 F.3d 1120, 1129-30 (5th Cir. 1997)). We review de novo whether the exception applies. Id. An officer’s reliance on a warrant is not objectively reasonable a n d , therefore, he i s n ot entitled to invoke the good-faith exception if, among other things, the warrant authorizing the officer’s actions is so “facially deficient” in failing to particularize the place to be searched or the things to be seized that the executing officers “cannot reasonably presume it to be valid.” United States v. Mays , 466 F.3d 335, 343 (5th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Gibbs , 421 F.3d 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Evidence should be suppressed “only if it can be said that the law enforcement officer had knowledge, or may properly be charged with knowledge, th a t th e search was unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.” Herring v. United States , 555 U.S. 135, 143 (2009) (quoting Illinoi s v . K r u l l , 480 U.S. 340, 348-49 (1987)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Chinwoh argues that the officers executing the search coul d not have

re l i e d o n the warrant in good faith because the warrant was so lacking in particularity that it was a “general” warr a nt

. I n reviewing whether a search warrant was suff

i c i e ntly particular, we must determine whether the warrant would permit no discretion to the executing officer in seizing evidence pursuant to the warrant. United States v. Allen , 625 F.3d 830, 834-35 (5th Cir. 2010), cert. denied , 132 S. Ct. 1632 (2012). In this case, the warrant delineated twenty-one
2 Case: 11-30683 Document: 00511854835 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/14/2012No. 11-30683

specific types of evidence to be sei z e d f r o m the business premises of MSBR. Items one through three spec if ically stated that the patient records and other documents be related to supplying durable medical equipment. All of the items

were described as records related to MSBR, the insurers and federal programs that were th e obj e c t s of the fraud, or the named defendants. Although the specific listing was c o m p r e hensive and allowed the seizure of a broad range of evidence, that specific listing di d n o t leave anything to the discretion of the executing officers. Chinwoh has failed to show, under the precedent of this circuit, that the warrant was so lacking in specificity that the executing officers had discretion to determine which items were to be seized. See Allen , 625 F.3d at 834-35. Chinwoh also argues that the officers could not have relied on the warrant to seize patient files because those records were outside the scope of the warrant. This issue has no merit. AFFIRMED.

3 Case: 11-30683 Document: 00511854835 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/14/2012