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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.