
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Phillip Edward BAKER, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 12-41430
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 13, 2014.
    Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Cynthia Jean-Marie Cline, Esq., Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.
    
      Before WIENER, OWEN, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Phillip Edward Baker was convicted following a bench trial of receipt of child pornography, access with intent to view child pornography, and possession of child pornography and sentenced to a 135-month term of imprisonment and a life-term of supervised release. See 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(2)(B), (a)(5)(B), (b)(2). Baker challenges the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his residence and challenges the district court’s admission of exhibits consisting of utility bills and bank statements found at the residence.

The district court did not err in determining that the information set forth in the affidavit supporting the application for a search warrant was not stale. See United States v. Allen, 625 F.3d 830, 842-43 (5th Cir.2010); United States v. Craig, 861 F.2d 818, 822-23 (5th Cir.1988). Baker has not demonstrated plain error with respect to his argument, raised for the first time on appeal, that an attachment describing the items to be searched for and seized was not attached to the search warrant, rendering the warrant constitutionally deficient. See United States v. Scroggins, 599 F.3d 433, 448 (5th Cir.2010); United States v. Rodriguez, 602 F.3d 346, 361 (5th Cir.2010). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Baker’s objection to the admission of the exhibits. See United States v. Garcia, 530 F.3d 348, 351 (5th Cir.2008); United States v. Arrington, 618 F.2d 1119, 1126 (5th Cir.1980).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion 'should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     