LeBlanc v. Duval
Case Date: 10/16/1996
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 96-1246
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 96-1246 ROBERT LEBLANC, Petitioner, v. RONALD DUVAL, Respondent.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- |