Source: http://openjurist.org/954/f2d/1465
Timestamp: 2015-11-30 00:54:31
Document Index: 553261770

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 841', '§ 3583', '§ 841', '§ 841', '§ 2255', '§ 1291', '§ 1002']

954 F2d 1465 Rodriguera v. United States | OpenJurist
954 F. 2d 1465 - Rodriguera v. United States HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 954 F.2d.
954 F2d 1465 Rodriguera v. United States 954 F.2d 1465
Alfonso RODRIGUERA, Plaintiff-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 89-56205.
Submitted June 3, 1991.*Decided Jan. 14, 1992.
Alfonso Rodriguera appeals the denial of his motion to correct his sentence following his plea of guilty to possession of cocaine with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Because we conclude that 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(2), which authorizes the revocation or modification of supervisory release terms, applies to Rodriguera's sentence and creates the possibility of a sentence longer than the maximum of which he was advised, we vacate his sentence and remand to allow him to plead anew.
* Rodriguera was charged with possession with intent to distribute two kilograms of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). This charge arose out of the activities of Rodriguera and co-defendant Jose Villalobos-Rodriguez in connection with the sale of cocaine to an undercover Drug Enforcement Administration agent on February 17, 1987. At the plea hearing of April 27, 1987, Rodriguera was advised by the district court and the Assistant United States Attorney that he faced a "maximum penalty of a fine of $250,000 and/or a five- to forty-year sentence coupled with a $50 mandatory penalty assessment." R.T. at 5-6. He was also advised that there were no special parole or similar terms involved. In fact, however, Rodriguera faced a mandatory minimum supervised release term of four years in addition to the penalties of which he was advised. See 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) (Supp. IV 1986). On June 15, 1987, the trial court sentenced Rodriguera to eight years imprisonment and ten years supervised release.
On June 19, 1989, Rodriguera filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a sentence, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied that motion and Rodriguera timely appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and review the legality of his criminal sentence de novo. United States v. Whitney, 785 F.2d 824, 825 (9th Cir.1986), modified, 838 F.2d 404 (1988).
A. Authority to Impose Supervised Release
Rodriguera committed his crime between October 27, 1986 and November 1, 1987. These dates are significant because on October 27, 1986, Congress enacted § 1002 of the