Court Opinion

ID: 2963543
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:11:42.327184+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:47.395039
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          August 1, 1995
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-1057

                                    ANTHONY SMITH,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                                    TIMOTHY HALL,

                                Respondent, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Willie J. Davis, Davis, Robinson & White, on brief for appellant.
            _______________  _______________________
            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and  William  J.   Meade,
            __________________                            ___________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per  Curiam.       Anthony Smith  appeals  from the
                      ___________

            district court's  dismissal  of his  habeas corpus  petition.

            See Smith  v. Hall, 874  F. Supp. 441  (D. Mass. 1995).   The
            ___ _____     ____

            district court concluded  that Teague v.  Lane, 489 U.S.  288
                                           ______     ____

            (1989)   (plurality   opinion),   and   its   progeny  barred

            consideration of the merits of Smith's petition because Smith

            sought a new, constitutional rule of criminal procedure which

            was not a "watershed" rule of criminal procedure.  Finding no

            error in  the court's  decision, we affirm  substantially for

            the reasons stated at length by the district court.  See Loc.
                                                                 ___

            R. 27.1.

                      Affirmed.
                      _________