[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 93-1666
RAYMOND H. COPP, JR.,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
Alfred D. Ellis and Cherwin & Glickman on brief for
appellant.
Michael L. Paup, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Gary R.
Allen, Charles E. Brookhart, and Sally J. Schornstheimer,
Attorneys, Tax Division, and Peter E. Papps, United States
Attorney, on brief for the United States.
November 24, 1993
Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record in
Per Curiam.
this matter and find that the order appealed from is proper in
all respects. Moreover, because the appeal presents no
substantial question of fact or law, and seems likely to have
been interposed primarily for purposes of delay, we summarily
affirm, grounding our affirmance on the reasons elucidated at
length in the district court's rescript and in our earlier
opinion resolving a companion dispute between the same parties.
See Copp v. United States, 968 F.2d 1435 (1st Cir. 1992), cert.
denied, 113 S. Ct. 1257 (1993). We add only that, insofar as
appellant attempts to invoke the attorney-client privilege, he
seeks to shield too much, too soon, on too exiguous an
evidentiary showing. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 798
F.2d 509, 512-13 (1st Cir. 1986) (describing requisite showing);
cf. United States v. Allee, 888 F.2d 208, 212 (1st Cir. 1989)
(discussing analogous problem in connection with Fifth Amendment
privilege). We need go no further.
Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. Mandate shall
issue forthwith.
2