[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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.