USCA1 Opinion
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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. _________