Rasheed v. Duval

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

July 29, 1996

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-2183



                                RASHAD AKEEM RASHEED,



                                Petitioner, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                    RONALD DUVAL,



                                Respondent, Appellee.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS



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



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________

                            Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
                                           ______________



                                 ____________________



            Rashad Akeem Rasheed on brief pro se.
            ____________________

            Scott  Harshbarger,   Attorney  General,  and   Ellyn  H.   Lazar,
            __________________                              _________________

        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________


Per Curiam.   We have  carefully reviewed the  record in
                 __________



this case.  Essentially for the reasons given by the district



            court  in its memorandum and order, dated August 28, 1995, we



            affirm the dismissal of the  petition.  Petitioner has failed



            to show  any external cause which prevented  him from raising



            his present  claim when he  filed his earlier  federal habeas



            petition in 1993.   Nor has he shown that failure  to address



            the  merits  of  his  claim  will  result  in  a  fundamental



            miscarriage of justice.1
                                   1



                 Affirmed.
                 ________


____________________



               1While  this case  was  pending on  appeal, the  President
               1

            signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty

            Act  of  1996, Pub.  L. 104-132,  110  Stat. 1214  (April 24,

            1996).   We need not decide  in this case whether  any of the

            amendments  in the  Act apply  since it  would not  alter our

            disposition.



                                         -2-