Marquez-Bolano v. United States ( 1993 )

USCA1 Opinion

          April 13, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                                 ____________________


        No. 92-2278

                            ALVARO RAFAEL MARQUEZ-BOLANO,

                                Petitioner, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                Respondent, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO


                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]
                                                ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,
                                         ___________
                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.
                                             ______________

                                 ____________________

            Alvaro Rafael Marquez-Bolano on brief pro se.
            ____________________________
            Daniel  F. Lopez  Romo, United  States Attorney,  Ivan  Dominquez,
            ______________________                            _______________
        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior
                                               _______________________
        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________













                 Per  Curiam.   Contrary to  appellant's contention,  the
                 ___________

            supervised release provision  of the Anti-Drug  Abuse Act  of

            1986 (ADAA),  Pub.  L. No.  99-570,  100 Stat.  3207,  became

            effective on the date of  the ADAA's enactment, i.e., October

            27,  1986.   Gozlon-Peretz  v.  United States,  498  U.S. 395
                         _____________      _____________

            (1991).    The  no-parole  provisions  of  the  ADAA   became

            effective on  that date, as  well.   United States v.  De Los
                                                 _____________     ______

            Santos-Himitola, 924  F.2d 380,  381 (1st  Cir. 1991).   And,
            _______________

            although Gozlon-Peretz  involved 21 U.S.C.    841 (controlled
                     _____________

            substances), we have held that its rationale applies  equally

            to the parallel  provisions in  21 U.S.C.    960  (controlled

            substance on  board vessel subject to  jurisdiction of United

            States).  Padilla Palacios v. United States, 932 F.2d 31, 33-
                      ________________    _____________

            34 (1st Cir. 1991).  The appellant is not eligible for parole

            and  his sentence, which included a 5 year term of supervised

            release, was lawful.

                 The judgment of the district court, dated September  23,

            1992,  and the amended  judgment, dated October  1, 1992, are

            affirmed.
            _________