Tydingco

*762 MEMORANDUM

Tydingco pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(a)(1), reserving the right to appeal from the order denying suppression of evidence. On appeal, he contends that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress the evidence obtained at his residence because the information in the affidavit for the search warrant was stale. We have jurisdiction over this timely filed appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

A court’s finding of probable cause is reviewed for clear error. United States v. Wright, 215 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir.2000). Thus, the court’s original determination of probable cause is accorded significant deference. United States v. Gil, 58 F.3d 1414, 1418 (9th Cir.1995).

Tydingco argues that the search warrant was defective because the information contained in the affidavit pertained to activity between June, 1998 and December, 1998, while the search warrant was obtained in May, 1999. According to Tydingco, this five month lapse is fatal. However, “ ‘[t]he mere lapse of substantial amounts of time is not controlling in a question of staleness.’ ” United States…