USCA1 Opinion
April 13, 1993 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
No. 92-2278
ALVARO RAFAEL MARQUEZ-BOLANO,
Petitioner, Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
[Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] ___________________
____________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge, ___________ Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges. ______________
____________________
Alvaro Rafael Marquez-Bolano on brief pro se. ____________________________ Daniel F. Lopez Romo, United States Attorney, Ivan Dominquez, ______________________ _______________ Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior _______________________ Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Contrary to appellant's contention, the ___________
supervised release provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of
1986 (ADAA), Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, became
effective on the date of the ADAA's enactment, i.e., October
27, 1986. Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395 _____________ _____________
(1991). The no-parole provisions of the ADAA became
effective on that date, as well. United States v. De Los _____________ ______
Santos-Himitola, 924 F.2d 380, 381 (1st Cir. 1991). And, _______________
although Gozlon-Peretz involved 21 U.S.C. 841 (controlled _____________
substances), we have held that its rationale applies equally
to the parallel provisions in 21 U.S.C. 960 (controlled
substance on board vessel subject to jurisdiction of United
States). Padilla Palacios v. United States, 932 F.2d 31, 33________________ _____________
34 (1st Cir. 1991). The appellant is not eligible for parole
and his sentence, which included a 5 year term of supervised
release, was lawful.
The judgment of the district court, dated September 23,
1992, and the amended judgment, dated October 1, 1992, are
affirmed. _________
Loading…