IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-40329
Summary Calendar
_____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
HANK ERWIN RICHARDSON,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:95-CR-90-1
_________________________________________________________________
January 7, 1997
Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Hank Erwin Richardson appeals his convictions of conspiracy to
distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine and
failure to file an income tax return. He contends that the
district court abused its discretion in failing to suppress
evidence of a search because the warrant was based on “stale”
information, erred in its determination of the amount of drugs
involved in the offense, erred in rejecting an accountant/client
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.
privilege, and erred in denying his motion for acquittal. Our
review of the record and the arguments and authorities convince us
that no reversible error was committed. The information contained
in the application for the warrant was not stale. United States v.
Freeman, 685 F.2d 942, 951-52 (5th Cir. 1982). The district court
did not clearly err in its determination of the amount of drugs
attributable to Richardson. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 340 (5th Cir.
1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1129, 114 S.Ct. 1096, and 115 S.Ct.
282 (1994). This court does not recognize an accountant/client
privilege. United States v. El Paso, Co., 682 F.2d 530, 540 (5th
Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 466 U.S. 944 (1984). The evidence was
sufficient to support the conspiracy conviction. United States v.
Casel, 995 F.2d 1299, 1306 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 978
(1993).
A F F I R M E D.
-2-