Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Marquez-Bolano v. United States, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views3 pages
    The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the appellant was not eligible for parole. The court held that the supervised release provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 became effective on the date of the Act's enactment on October 27, 1986. Therefore, the appellant's sentence, which included a 5-year term of supervised release, was lawful under the provisions of the ADAA.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1993-04-13 Precedential Status: Precedential Docket: 92-2278

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the appellant was not eligible for parole. The court held that the supervised release provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 became effective on the date of the Act's enactment on October 27, 1986. Therefore, the appellant's sentence, which included a 5-year term of supervised release, was lawful under the provisions of the ADAA.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    5 views3 pages

    Marquez-Bolano v. United States, 1st Cir. (1993)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The court affirmed the district court's ruling that the appellant was not eligible for parole. The court held that the supervised release provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 became effective on the date of the Act's enactment on October 27, 1986. Therefore, the appellant's sentence, which included a 5-year term of supervised release, was lawful under the provisions of the ADAA.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    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    [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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 Dominqu
    ______________________
    _____________
    Assistant United States Attorney, and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Sen
    _______________________
    Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.
    ____________________
    ____________________

    Per Curiam.
    ___________

    Contrary to

    supervised release provision


    1986 (ADAA),

    Pub.

    L. No.

    effective on the date of


    27,

    1986.

    (1991).

    effective on

    of the Anti-Drug
    99-570,

    v.

    provisions

    that date, as

    well.

    although Gozlon-Peretz
    _____________

    100 Stat.

    3207,

    United States,
    _____________

    no-parole

    Santos-Himitola, 924
    _______________

    Abuse Act

    F.2d 380,

    of

    498

    the

    of

    became

    United States v.
    _____________

    381 (1st

    involved 21 U.S.C.

    provisions in

    U.S. 395

    ADAA

    Cir. 1991).

    21 U.S.C.

    became
    De Los
    ______
    And,

    841 (controlled

    substances), we have held that its rationale applies


    to the parallel

    the

    the ADAA's enactment, i.e., October

    Gozlon-Peretz
    _____________
    The

    appellant's contention,

    960

    equally

    (controlled

    substance on
    States).

    board vessel subject to

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


    _____________

    34 (1st Cir. 1991).


    and

    jurisdiction of United

    The appellant is not eligible for parole

    his sentence, which included a 5 year term of supervised

    release, was lawful.


    The judgment of the district court, dated September
    1992,

    and the amended

    affirmed.
    _________

    judgment, dated October

    23,

    1, 1992, are

    You might also like