Smith v. Hall

• Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• Decided: August 1, 1995
• Docket: 95-1057
• Status: Published

Opinion

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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.
                      _________