Paone v. Commissioner

Opinion

[NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT] United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 98-2148

ENRICO PAONE,

Petitioner,

v.

COMMISSIONER, NEW HAMPSHIRE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge, Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge, and Stahl, Circuit Judge.

Enrico Paone on brief pro se. Philip T. McLaughlin, Attorney General, and Charles T. Putnam, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief for respondent.

May 27, 1999

Per Curiam. Having carefully reviewed the summary judgment below in light of the record and the arguments on this appeal, we agree with the district court's conclusion that the New Hampshire Supreme Court's decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law. See 28 U.S.C. 2254(d)(1). We add only that nothing in Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992), compels a different result on federal habeas review. Substantially for the reasons stated in the district court's well-reasoned opinion and order of September 3, 1998, the judgment is affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.