Court Opinion

ID: 2962222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 20:54:23.657595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:42.359625
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 93-1471                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                      Appellee,                                          v.                                      JOSE PARA,                                Defendant, Appellant.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND                     [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, U.S. District Judge]                                             ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,                                       _____________                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,                                    ____________________                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.                                         _____________                                 ____________________             Damon M. D'Ambrosio and Martin  D. Harris, Esquire, Ltd. on brief             ___________________     ________________________________        for appellant.             Edwin  J. Gale,  United  States  Attorney,  Margaret  E.  Curran,             ______________                              ____________________        Assistant  United States Attorney,  and Gerard B.  Sullivan, Assistant                                                ___________________        United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                   November 8, 1993                                 ____________________                    Per Curiam.   Appellant  Jose Para  was sentenced  to a                    Per Curiam                    __________          three-year  prison term  and  a  three-year  term  of  supervised          release  on December 1, 1987,  for distributing four and one-half          ounces  of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1),(b)(1)(-          C), on  or about  May 6,  1987 ("first  offense").   On or  about          May 6, 1989,  after Para had  served two years of  the three-year          prison term, the  United States Parole Commission  authorized his          release on  parole.  On  February 2, 1992, while still  on super-          vised  release, Para was  arrested for distributing  a detectable          amount of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C)          ("second offense").  In 1993, Para was convicted and sentenced to          a sixteen-month prison term for  the second offense.  Following a          violation hearing  before the district  court in the wake  of the          second offense, Para was sentenced to a consecutive sixteen-month          prison term for violating the supervised  release term imposed in          connection with the first offense.                    We summarily  reject Para's mischaracterization  of the          plain  language of the  December 1, 1987, judgment  of conviction          and sentence, as imposing a  term of "special parole" rather than          a term of "supervised release."  The judgment  explicitly imposed          "a  term of  supervised  release  for a  period  of three  years"          following  Para's release from  prison.  Undaunted,  Para insists          that, in  fact, he must have been sentenced to a "special parole"          term, because he was paroled  by the United States Parole Commis-          sion.   "Special  parole," prior  to  its elimination  under  the          Sentencing  Reform Act  of 1984  (SRA),  Gozlon-Peretz v.  United                                                   _____________     ______          States, 498  U.S. 395, 397 (1991), was a mandatory element in any          ______                                                     __ ___          prison sentence imposed for a federal  drug offense.  The form of          ______ ________          parole on which  Para was released from prison  in 1989, however,          is merely a  post-sentencing administrative ruling by  the Parole          Commission  that the defendant  should be  conditionally released          into the community prior  to the completion  of the full term  of          imprisonment imposed by  the sentencing court.  See  Morrissey v.                                                          ___  _________          Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 477 (1972).          ______                    Para's alternate claim is that the sixteen-month prison          term the district court imposed in 1993 for committing the second          offense while on  supervised release is an invalid  ex post facto                                                              __ ____ _____          punishment.   See Hammond v. United  States, 786 F.2d  8, 16 (1st                        ___ _______    ______  ______          Cir. 1986).  Para reasons that in May of 1987     the date of the          first offense     a lawful  term of supervised release  could not          have been imposed, no matter  what the judgment of conviction and          sentence  stated,  because the  SRA  did  not  take effect  until          November 1, 1987, well after the commission of the first offense.                    This claim is  foreclosed by Gozlon-Peretz, which  held                                                 _____________          that,  "in the  interim  period  between  October 27,  1986,  and          November 1, 1987, supervised release applies for all drug offens-          es in the  categories specified by ADAA   1002"  [Section 1002 of          the  Anti Drug Abuse  Act of 1986,  Pub. L. No.  99-570, 100 Stat          3207].  498 U.S. at 409.  Since the first offense was for an ADAA            1002  violation (distribution  of cocaine  in  violation of  21          U.S.C.   841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C))  and ADAA    1002 became  effective          upon  its  enactment on  October  27,  1986, the  district  court                                          3          correctly  sentenced Para  to  a  mandatory  term  of  supervised          release  on December 1,  1987, see  21  U.S.C.   841(a)(1),  (b)-                                         ___          (1)(C).                    The district court judgment is summarily affirmed.  See                    _________________________________________________   ___          Loc. R. 27.1.           ____________                                          4