United States v. Pellerito ( 1997 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion











    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT



    ____________________


    No. 97-1559

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    GUISEPPE PELLERITO,

    Defendant, Appellant.


    ____________________

    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

    [Hon. Jose Antonio Fuste, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Selya, Circuit Judge, _____________
    Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge, ____________________
    and Boudin, Circuit Judge. _____________

    ____________________

    George F. Murphy on brief for appellant. ________________
    John C. Keeney, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and Corbin A. ______________ __________
    Weiss, Trial Attorney, Department of Justice, on Motion for Summary _____
    Disposition and Memorandum in Support for appellee.


    ____________________

    December 19, 1997
    ____________________













    Per Curiam. Appellant Giuseppe Pellerito appeals the __________

    denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence, pursuant

    to Fed. R. Crim P. 35(a). We affirm.

    Pellerito raises two arguments in support of this claim.

    First, he asserts that his involvement in the conspiracy for

    which he was sentenced ended before 1984 and therefore he

    should have been sentenced in accord with the pre-1984

    penalty provisions of 21 U.S.C. 846. Second, he claims

    that, even if his involvement lasted beyond November 1984,

    the penalty provisions of section 846 were not changed until

    1988. Neither argument has merit.

    Pellerito claims that the indictment to which he pled

    guilty only referred to his involvement in the conspiracy

    during the years of 1978 and 1979. However, while the

    indictment is not entirely clear as to when his involvement

    in the conspiracy ended, the government stated, without

    objection, at the change of plea hearing that Pellerito's

    involvement lasted "through 1985" and the presentence

    investigation report states that Pellerito's involvement

    lasted at least until the summer of 1985.

    Pellerito also claims that, even if his involvement in

    the conspiracy lasted beyond November 1984, the penalty

    provisions of section 846 were not changed until 1988. This

    claim is without merit.





    -2-













    In 1970 Congress enacted the Comprehensive Drug Abuse

    and Control Act. One section of the act, now codified as 21

    U.S.C. 841, provided for up to 15 years imprisonment and a

    $25,000 fine or both, for possession with intent to

    distribute or the distribution of narcotic drugs. Another

    section, now 21 U.S.C. 846, provided that conspiracy for

    "any offense in this subchapter is punishable by imprisonment

    or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment

    prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the

    object of the . . . conspiracy." While the language of

    section 846 was not changed until 1988, section 841 was

    amended in 1984 to increase the punishments to a maximum of

    20 years and a fine of $250,000 or both. Pellerito claims

    that, since section 846 was not amended until 1988, its

    penalty provisions remained the same as those originally set

    in 1970, i.e., a maximum of 15 years imprisonment or a fine ____

    of $25,000 or both.

    According to the Supreme Court, "[a]s a general rule,

    where the legislation dealing with a particular subject

    consists of a system of general provisions indicative of a

    settled policy, new enactments of a fragmentary nature on

    that subject are to be taken as intended to fit into the

    existing system and to be carried into effect conformably to

    it, excepting as a different purpose is plainly shown."

    United States v. Jefferson Electric Co., 291 U.S. 386, 396 ______________ _______________________



    -3-













    (1933) (citing cases). In the instant case, Congress

    originally enacted sections 841 and 846 as "part of a

    comprehensive legislative scheme [the Comprehensive Drug

    Abuse and Control Act of 1970] designed to halt drug abuse in

    the United States." United States v. Baker, 609 F.2d 134, ______________ _____

    137 (5th Cir. 1980). Pursuant to that comprehensive scheme,

    the punishment for conspiracies was not to "exceed the

    maximum punishment prescribed for the offense." 21 U.S.C.

    846. The 1984 amendment, increasing penalties for violations

    of the offense, was clearly a "fragmentary" enactment which,

    in turn, was designed to halt drug trafficking. Since there

    is no indication that Congress intended in 1984 to modify the

    prior relation between the punishment scheme for the offense

    and that for conspiracy, the amendment must be carried into

    effect conformably with that scheme, i.e., the punishment for ____

    conspiracy must still be limited to the "maximum punishment

    for the offense" which would now be 20 years imprisonment and

    a $250,000 fine, or both. Cf. United States v. Layton, 509 __ _____________ ______

    F.Supp. 212, 225 (N.D.Cal.) (18 U.S.C. 1117, which provides

    punishment for those who "conspire to violate sections 1111,

    1114 or 1116 of this title," incorporates amendments to those

    sections), appeal dismissed, 645 F.2d 681 (9th Cir.), cert. ______ _________ _____

    denied, 452 U.S. 972 (1981) ______

    Pellerito reliance on Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. _______ _____________

    381 (1980) is misplaced. In Bifulco, the court held that the _______



    -4-













    penalty provisions of 846 did not incorporate the "special

    parole" provisions of 841. The court reasoned that, since

    846 referred only to "imprisonment or fines," it did not

    authorize other penalties, such as special parole, which were

    neither. This reasoning, however, does not apply to the

    instant case since the issue here is "imprisonment" and

    "fines" which are specifically authorized in 846.

    Affirmed. See 1st Cir. Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___





































    -5-