Smith v. Hall
Case Date: 08/01/1995
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 95-1057
|
August 1, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 95-1057 ANTHONY SMITH, Petitioner, Appellant, v. TIMOTHY HALL, Respondent,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. _________ |