Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01483/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01483-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Guillermo Guerrero
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

I 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

MAR O 61989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

> Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

v. ) No. 88-1483 

) (D.C. No. 86-CR-145) 

GUILLERMO GUERRERO, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON and TACHA, Circuit Judges, and ROGERS, District 

Judge.** 

**The Honorable Richard D. Rogers, United States District Judge 

for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation. 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Defendant appeals the denial of his motion to vacate, set 

aside, or correct sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). We 

*This order and 

be cited, or 

for purposes of 

res judicata, 

judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

used by any court wit in the Tenth Circuit, except 

establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 88-1483 Document: 010110024502 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 1 
first address the government's argument on appeal that defendant's 

notice of appeal was untimely. The government contends that the 

ten-day period provided in Fed. R. App. P. 4(b) for filing a 

notice of appeal in criminal cases applies to the appeal of the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion. Under a ten-day rule, defendant's 

notice of appeal would be untimely. Defendant could have filed 

his motion, however, under 28 u.s.c. § 2255. United States v. de 

los Reyes, 842 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir. 1988). Accordingly, we 

will treat defendant's Rule 35 motion as a motion under § 2255, 

thereby giving defendant sixty days to file his notice of appeal. 

Id.; accord, Hixon v. United States, 268 F.2d 667, 668 (10th Cir. 

1959). Defendant's notice of appeal was therefore timely. 

Defendant pleaded guilty and was convicted of unlawful 

distribution of a Schedule II controlled substance. See 21 U.S.C. 

§ 84l(a)(l)(l970). Defendant was sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment and a special parole term. Defendant challenges the 

imposition of the special parole term, arguing that at the time of 

the commission of the crime, April 29, 1986, the sentencing 

authorized for a violation of § 84l(a)(l) did not include a 

special parole term. See id. at§ 84l(b)(l)(A). 

On appeal, defendant argues that the special parole term 

provision was stricken from § 84l{b)(l)(A) in 1984 in the 

Controlled Substances Penalties Amendments Act of 1984, Pub. L. 

No. 98-473, § 502, 98 Stat. 1837, 2068 (codified at 21 u.s.c. 

§ 84l(b)(l)(supp. II 1984), 1984 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2. 

Section 502, however, redesignated § 84l(b)(l)(~) as 

§ 84l(b)(l)(~). Pub. L. No. 98-473, § 502, 98 Stat. at 2068. The 

2 

Appellate Case: 88-1483 Document: 010110024502 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 2 
.r 

sentencing provision which properly applied to defendant was thus 

21 U.S.C. § 84l(b}(l}(B}(supp. II 1984). The 1984 amendment did 

not delete the special parole term from§ 84l(b)(l)(B). See 21 

U.S.C. § 84l(b)(l)(B)(supp. II 1984). 

Also in 1984, in§ 224 of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act 

of 1984, Congress passed a prospective amendment to§ 84l(b)(l} 

which did delete the special parole term from each subsection. 

Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, 

§ 224, 98 Stat. at 2030. The effective date of § 224, however, 

was to have been November 1, 1987. See id. at§ 235(a}(l), 98 

Stat. at 2031; see also 21 u.s.c. § 841 note (supp. II 1984). 

Moreover, the pertinent provision of § 224 was repealed by 

subsequent legislation before it ever took effect. See Anti-Drug 

Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, § 1005(a)(2), 100 Stat. 

3207, 3207-6, 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 2 (repealing 

paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (5) of § 224(a)). 

Defendant also relies on Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 

381 (1980). In Bifulco, the Supreme Court held that a person 

convicted under 21 U.S.C. § 406 of attempt or conspiracy to 

violate§ 841 could not be sentenced to a special parole term by 

reference to the sentencing authorized for the target offense. 

Here, defendant was convicted of a violation of § 841, which 

itself provides for sentencing to a special parole term. 

Defendant's reliance on Bifulco is therefore misplaced. 

3 

Appellate Case: 88-1483 Document: 010110024502 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 3 
After careful review of the briefs and record on appeal, the 

judgment of the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

4 

Appellate Case: 88-1483 Document: 010110024502 Date Filed: 03/06/1989 Page: 4