Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rasheed v. Duval, 95-2183 (1996)

Court: Court of Appeals for the First Circuit Number: 95-2183 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 29, 1996
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: Respondent, Appellee.___________, Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.Rashad Akeem Rasheed on brief pro se.Per Curiam.petition in 1993.1While this case was pending on appeal, the President, 1, signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty, Act of 1996, Pub.
USCA1 Opinion









July 29, 1996
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



____________________


No. 95-2183

RASHAD AKEEM RASHEED,

Petitioner, Appellant,

v.

RONALD DUVAL,

Respondent, Appellee.


____________________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Douglas P. Woodlock, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

____________________

Before

Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

____________________

Rashad Akeem Rasheed on brief pro se. ____________________
Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Ellyn H. Lazar, __________________ _________________
Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.


____________________


____________________


Per Curiam. We have carefully reviewed the record in __________














this case. Essentially for the reasons given by the district

court in its memorandum and order, dated August 28, 1995, we

affirm the dismissal of the petition. Petitioner has failed

to show any external cause which prevented him from raising

his present claim when he filed his earlier federal habeas

petition in 1993. Nor has he shown that failure to address

the merits of his claim will result in a fundamental

miscarriage of justice.1 1

Affirmed. ________


























____________________

1While this case was pending on appeal, the President 1
signed into law the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty
Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (April 24,
1996). We need not decide in this case whether any of the
amendments in the Act apply since it would not alter our
disposition.

-2-






Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer