United States v. Samuel Harari

Eleventh Circuit

United States v. Samuel Harari

940 F.2d 614, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 20172, 1991 WL 154270

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 30, 1991

Docket89-3880

StatusPublished

This text of 940 F.2d 614 (United States v. Samuel Harari) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Samuel Harari, 940 F.2d 614, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 20172, 1991 WL 154270 (11th Cir. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant pled guilty to charges involving the distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to ten years in prison and eight years of special parole. No appeal was taken. Appellant filed a motion under Rule 35(a) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. to correct an illegal sentence contending that the specific statute covering his offense did not provide for the imposition of post-conviction monitoring. This motion was denied.

This argument involves the relationship of the provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (ADAA) signed into law on October 27, 1986 and the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 which became effective on November 1, 1987. Any doubt about this question of post-conviction monitoring being authorized between October 27, 1986 and November 1, 1987 has now been eliminated. The Supreme Court in Gozlon-Perety v. United States, 498 U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 840, 112 L.Ed.2d 919 (1991), has held that the ADAA provisions mandating a term of “supervised release” apply to all drug offenses specified in section 1002 of the ADAA, including 21 U.S.C. § 841, occurring after October 27, 1986.

We VACATE that portion of the sentence dealing with the special parole term and REMAND for resentencing in accord with the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant pled guilty to charges involving the distribution of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). He was sentenced to ten years in prison and eight years of special parole. No appeal was taken. Appellant filed a motion under Rule 35(a) of the Fed.R.Crim.P. to correct an illegal sentence contending that the specific statute covering his offense did not provide for the imposition of post-conviction monitoring. This motion was denied.

This argument involves the relationship of the provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (ADAA) signed into law on October 27, 1986 and the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 which became effective on November 1, 1987. Any doubt about this question of post-conviction monitoring being authorized between October 27, 1986 and November 1, 1987 has now been eliminated. The Supreme Court in Gozlon-Perety v. United States, 498 U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 840, 112 L.Ed.2d 919 (1991), has held that the ADAA provisions mandating a term of “supervised release” apply to all drug offenses specified in section 1002 of the ADAA, including 21 U.S.C. § 841, occurring after October 27, 1986.

We VACATE that portion of the sentence dealing with the special parole term and REMAND for resentencing in accord with the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

940 F.2d 614, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 20172, 1991 WL 154270, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-samuel-harari-ca11-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack