Case Resources
Search this Case
in Google Scholar
on the Web
Google Web Search
MSN Web Search
Yahoo! Web Search
in the News
Google News Search
Google News Archive Search
Yahoo! News Search
in the Blogs
BlawgSearch.com Search
Google Blog Search
Technorati Blog Search
in other Databases
Google Book Search
Justia Research Resources
Justia.com
Supreme Court Center
US Regulation Tracker
US District Court Opinions
Federal District Court Civil Case Filings
Legal Blog Search
Legal Podcast Search
USA Constitution Annotated
Online Research Resources
Cornell LII
Cornell Wex Dictionary & Encyclopedia
LLRX.com - Legal Research
Expert Witness Directory
Nolo Consumer & Business
US Court Forms
WashLaw Directory
World LII
Cases Provided By
Creative Commons
public.resource.org
Notice: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 States Unpublished Opinions May Be Cited Only in Related Cases.united States of America, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. Clifford A. Doyle, Defendant, Appellant
United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit. - 91 F.3d 121
Aug. 2, 1996
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge]
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.
D.Me.
AFFIRMED.
Before SELYA, CYR and BOUDIN, Circuit Judges.
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.