LeBlanc v. Duval

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



                                 ____________________


No. 96-1246


ROBERT LEBLANC,



                                     Petitioner,



                                          v.



                                    RONALD DUVAL,



                                     Respondent.



                                 ____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,

                                   Circuit Judges. 
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Robert LeBlanc on brief pro se.
            ______________

            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and Gregory  I.  Massing,
            __________________                           ____________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.


____________________



                                   OCTOBER 16. 1996

                                 ____________________



Per Curiam.   We have carefully  examined the record  in
                 __________



            this  case,  including the  briefs  of  the  parties and  the



            opinion of  the district  court below.   Essentially  for the



            reasons given  by the district court in  its opinion, LeBlanc
                                                                  _______



            v. Duval, 900 F.Supp.  538 (D.Mass. 1996), we agree  with the
               _____



            district  court's   conclusion  that  the   jury  instruction



            constituted harmless error and that petitioner was not denied



            effective  assistance  of counsel.    Accordingly,  the order



            denying petitioner's  request  for habeas  corpus  relief  is



            affirmed.1
                     1
            ________


____________________



               1The  "Antiterrorism  and Effective  Death Penalty  Act of
               1

            1996"  (Pub. L. 104-32) was signed into law while this appeal

            was pending.  We need not determine to  what extent the Act's

            amendments  govern  this  case  since, even  under  the  more

            expansive  scope of review prior  to the Act,  LeBlanc is not

            entitled to relief.



                                         -2-