
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          August 1, 1995                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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.                      _________
