[NOT FOR PUBLICATION--NOT TO BE CITED AS PRECEDENT]

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit

No. 98-1218

THOMAS H. AUSTIN,

Petitioner,

v.

GEORGE A. VOSE, JR., ET AL.,

Respondent.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. William G. Young, U.S. District Judge]

Before

Selya, Circuit Judge, Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lynch, Circuit Judge.

Thomas Austin on brief pro se. Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, and Susanne g. Levsen, Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellees.

June 19, 1998

Per Curiam. Upon careful review of the briefs and record, we reach essentially the same conclusion reached by the district court. In our de novo review, we have applied the standard set forth in Brecht v. Abrahamson,

(1993), and we have considered the factors outlined in Levasseur v. Pepe,

(1st Cir. 1995). Thus, we conclude that, although the videotape may have been used extensively at the trial, and the identification issue to which it pertained may have been the central question before the jury, still the properly admitted evidence against petitioner was so strong that, even assuming the videotape improperly was shown to the jury, habeas relief is not warranted. Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.