CARLOS CEDENO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a special parole term is permissible for offenses committed before November 1, 1987, under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(C).
Carlos Cedeno pleaded guilty to distributing crack cocaine and was sentenced to imprisonment followed by a lifetime special parole term. He petitioned…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Comprehensive Crime Control Act Of 1984 cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Carlos Cedeno appeals from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Duffy, J,, denying his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his lifetime special parole term. Cedeno maintains that the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 abolished terms of special parole.
On March 10, 1987, Cedeno was arrested for distributing crack cocaine. Cedeno pleaded guilty to distributing two vials of crack in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(C). On July 20, 1987, the district court sentenced Cedeno to five years imprisonment to be followed by special parole for a term of life. His petition to vacate the special parole term was denied.
This circuit recently addressed the issue of what form of post-release supervision may be imposed as part of a sentence under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). In Mercado v. United States, 898 F. 2d 291 (2d Cir.1990), the petitioner argued that his special parole term should be vacated since the version of 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B) applicable at the time of his offense did not provide for any form of post-release supervision. Following the lead of a number of other courts, this circuit concluded that “special parole terms, rather than supervised release, must be imposed for offenses under section 841(b)(1)(B) committed before November 1, 1987.” Id., at 292; see, e.g., United States v. Portillo, 863 F. 2d 25, 26 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam); United States v. Smith, 840 F. 2d 886, 889-90 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 154, 102 L.Ed.2d 125 (1988).
We have been presented with no reasons, nor do we perceive any, to distinguish § 841(b)(1)(B) from § 841(b)(1)(C) for purposes of determining whether special parole or supervised release is authorized, and thus Mercado controls the disposition of this case. Since Cedeno’s offense was committed before November 1, 1987, the district court properly sentenced Cedeno to a term of special parole.
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. Smith, 840 F.2d 886 (11th Cir. 1988)
- United States v. Telesforo Portillo, 863 F.2d 25 (8th Cir. 1988)
- Radames Mercado v. United States, 898 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1990)