Copp v. United States ( 1993 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion






    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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
    Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. Mandate shall
    ________ ___ _______ _____

    issue forthwith.
    issue forthwith.
    _____ _________












    2







Document Info

Docket Number: 93-1666

Filed Date: 11/30/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015