
USCA1 Opinion

	




                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 96-1246                                   ROBERT LEBLANC,                                     Petitioner,                                          v.                                    RONALD DUVAL,                                     Respondent.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS                     [Hon. Nancy J. Gertner, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                Selya, Cyr and Boudin,                                   Circuit Judges.                                    ______________                                 ____________________            Robert LeBlanc on brief pro se.            ______________            Scott  Harshbarger,  Attorney  General,  and Gregory  I.  Massing,            __________________                           ____________________        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   OCTOBER 16. 1996                                 ____________________                 Per Curiam.   We have carefully  examined the record  in                 __________            this  case,  including the  briefs  of  the  parties and  the            opinion of  the district  court below.   Essentially  for the            reasons given  by the district court in  its opinion, LeBlanc                                                                  _______            v. Duval, 900 F.Supp.  538 (D.Mass. 1996), we agree  with the               _____            district  court's   conclusion  that  the   jury  instruction            constituted harmless error and that petitioner was not denied            effective  assistance  of counsel.    Accordingly,  the order            denying petitioner's  request  for habeas  corpus  relief  is            affirmed.1                     1            ________                                            ____________________               1The  "Antiterrorism  and Effective  Death Penalty  Act of               1            1996"  (Pub. L. 104-32) was signed into law while this appeal            was pending.  We need not determine to  what extent the Act's            amendments  govern  this  case  since, even  under  the  more            expansive  scope of review prior  to the Act,  LeBlanc is not            entitled to relief.                                         -2-
