Court Opinion

ID: 2964203
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:22:05.821065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:16.828227
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1390

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                 Plaintiff, Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  CLIFFORD A. DOYLE,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE

                     [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Marcia G. Shein on brief for appellant.
            _______________
            Jay P. McCloskey,  United States  Attorney, and  F. Mark  Terison,
            ________________                                 ________________
        Assistant United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                    August 2, 1996

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Upon careful review of the briefs and
                      __________

            record, we conclude  that the district court  properly denied

            appellant's petition as an abuse of the writ, essentially for

            the reasons  stated in the  magistrate's recommended decision

            as adopted by  the district court.  Petitioner  has not shown

            any  external  cause  which prevented  him  from  raising his

            present double jeopardy claim in his earlier habeas petition,

            and he  has not shown that  failure to address the  merits of

            his  claim  will  result  in  a  fundamental  miscarriage  of

            justice.

                 Our   decision  would  be  the  same  under  either  the

            Antiterrorism and Effective  Death Penalty Act of  1996, Pub.

            L. 104-132,  110 Stat.  1214 (April 24,  1996), or  the prior

            version  of federal  habeas corpus  law, and  so we  need not

            decide which version applies here.

                 Affirmed.  See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___