Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03264/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03264-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Mark A. McKinnell
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

. ' 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellee, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) (D.C. 

MARK A. MCKINNELL, ) 

) 

Defendant-Appellant. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

FILED 

Unit.ed Stater. C.r m: o; A~lt ,,,,_,-ti,_ ~i-~11 it 

APR 2 3 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3264 

No. 88-20003-01) 

( D. Kan.) 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant-appellant Mark McKinnell was found guilty of 

possessing approximately forty-eight grams of cocaine with intent 

to distribute in violation of 18 U.S.C . § 84l(a)(l) and carrying a 

firearm during or in relation to a drug trafficking crime in 

v i olation of 21 u.s.c. § 924(c)(l). Defendant's conviction was 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3264 Document: 010110034332 Date Filed: 04/23/1991 Page: 1 
-

upheld by this court. United States~ McKinnell, 888 F.2d 669 

(10th Cir. 1989). Defendant has now filed a motion pursuant to 

Rule 35(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to correct 

his sentence. We reverse the district court's denial of this 

motion, vacate defendant's sentence, and remand for resentencing. 

The recent changes in the system for postconfinement 

monitoring of drug offenders was explained by Justice Kennedy in 

the recent Supreme Court decision Gozlon-Peretz ~ United States, 

111 S. Ct. 840, 843 (1991): 

Before 1984, drug offenders sentenced to prison 

were required to serve terms of special parole 

following their incarceration. The Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984 eliminated special parole and, 

in its place, established conditions for the new 

system of supervised release. To ensure the 

orderly implementation of this change, Congress 

delayed the effective date of the Sentencing Reform 

Act's supervised release provisions until November 

1, 1987. A year before that date, however, 

Congress enacted the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 

(ADAA), which mandates terms of supervised release 

for certain drug offenses. 

The Supreme Court has determined the provision of the ADAA 

relating to supervised release, 21 u.s.c. § 84l(b)(l)(A), became 

effective on the date it was enacted, October 27, 1986, rather 

than the effective date of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, 

November 1, 1987. Id. at 848-49. Courts sentencing individuals 

who committed offenses after October 27, 1986 should therefore 

impose a term of supervised release rather than a special parole 

term. 

Defendant committed the drug and firearm offenses on July 5, 

1987. The sentencing court therefore erred in imposing a special 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3264 Document: 010110034332 Date Filed: 04/23/1991 Page: 2 
.. . 

parole term of four years. We REVERSE the district court's denial 

of defendant's Rule 35(a) motion, VACATE defendant's sentence, and 

REMAND for resentencing consistent with this opinion. The mandate 

shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3264 Document: 010110034332 Date Filed: 04/23/1991 Page: 3