Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01131/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01131-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jameel-Ismail Hassan Saahir
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

• 

FILED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Ciraiit 

TENTH CIRCUIT NOV 1,1 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

v. 

JAMEEL-ISMAIL HASSAN SAAHIR, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

No. 90-1131 

(D.C. No. 88-CR-237) 

(D. Colo.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before MCKAY, MOORE, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

BRORBY, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this 

three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argument 

would not be of material assistance in the determination of this 

appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The 

cause is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

Mr. Saahir appeals, prose, the district court's denial of 

his motion to correct an illegal sentence. As this is a preguidelines offense, "[w]e review the legality of a sentence de 

* be 

for 

res 

Sentencing that falls within statutory limits, however, is 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

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

Appellate Case: 90-1131 Document: 010110051275 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 1 
reviewed only for an abuse of discretion." United States v. 

Duncan, 870 F.2d 1532, 1535 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 110 S. Ct. 

264 (1989) (ciations omitted). 

Mr. Saahir was convicted of one count of conspiracy to import 

marijuana and two counts of importing and aiding the importation 

of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 963, and 18 U.S.C. 

§ 2. Mr. Saahir was sentenced to two consecutive terms of three 

years each, and a term of five years concurrent with the six years 

total of the consecutive terms. In addition he received two 

consecutive sentences of special parole for two years on the 

importation counts. Mr. Saahir appealed to this court and we 

affirmed in an unpublished Order and Judgment, No. 88-1018, March 

1, 1990, cert. denied, No. 89-7630, 47 Crim. L. Rptr. 3089. One 

week later, Mr. Saahir filed a motion to correct illegal sentence 

pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). Mr. Saahir asked the court to 

strike the four-year term of special parole. The district judge 

in a minute order dated April 11, 1990, denied the motion. We 

affirm. 

Mr. Saahir claims the trial court lacked statutory authority 

to impose terms of special parole for violations of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 841(b)(l)(A) that occurred between October 12, 1984, the 

effective date of the Controlled Substances Penalties Amendments 

Act of 19841 , and November 1, 1987, the effective date of the 

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

No. 98-473, §502, 98 Stat. 1837, 2068. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-1131 Document: 010110051275 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 2 
Sentencing Reform Act of 1984. 2 Under our prior rulings, see 

United States v. Levario, 877 F.2d 1483, 1487 (10th Cir. 1989); 

United States v. Garcia, 879 F.2d 803, 804 (10th Cir. 1989), Mr. 

Saahir is correct. 

However, Mr. Saahir was sentenced not under 21 U.S.C. 

§ 84l(b)(l)(A), but rather under § 841(b)(l)(D), which applies 

"[i]n the case of less than 50 kilograms of marihuana II 

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

No. 98-473, § 502(C), 98 Stat. 1837, 2068-2069, as amended by the 

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-570 § 1002, 100 Stat. 

3207, 3207-2. Nowhere does the record suggest that Mr. Saahir was 

found to possess 50 or more kilograms of marijuana. 

Unlike§ 841(b)(l)(A), the applicable section now before us--

§ 841(b)(l)(D)--requires that "[a]ny sentence imposing a term of 

imprisonment under this paragraph shall impose a term of 

supervised release of at least 2 years in addition to such term of 

imprisonment II Statutory authority for the imposition of 

special parole under § 84l(b) ( 1) (D) persisted until the 

"supervised release" provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act became 

effective on November 1, 1987, under§ 1004(a) and the Sentencing 

Reform Act of 1984. 3 

2 See Sentencing 

98 Stat. 1987, 

Amendments Act of 

( 1985). 

Reform Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-473, § 235, 

2031 (1984), as amended by Sentencing Reform 

1985, Pub. L. No. 99-217, § 4 , 99 Stat . 1728 

3 See note 2, supra. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-1131 Document: 010110051275 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 3 
.. _,-/ ' . 

As the challenged sentence is within statutory limits, and 

was imposed without abuse of discretion, the sentence must stand. 

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-1131 Document: 010110051275 Date Filed: 11/14/1990 Page: 4