United States v. Doyle

Opinion

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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.
                 ________   ___