United States v. Orejuela ( 1993 )

USCA1 Opinion

          March 9, 1993
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________


        No. 92-1971

                                    UNITED STATES,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                  ALDEMAR OREJUELA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND


                [Hon. Raymond J. Pettine, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                          __________________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

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

                                 ____________________

            Aldemar Orejuela on brief pro se.
            ________________
            Lincoln C. Almond, United States Attorney, Margaret  E. Curran and
            _________________                          ___________________
        Kenneth P.  Madden, Assistant  United States  Attorneys, on  brief for
        __________________
        appellee.


                                 ____________________


                                 ____________________













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

            increased   maximum  penalties  and  the  supervised  release

            provisions  of the Anti-Drug Abuse  Act of 1986,  Pub. L. No.

            99-570, 100 Stat. 3207 (ADAA) 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.  Padilla  Palacios v. United  States, 932 F.2d
                            _________________    ______________

            31,  33-34   (1st  Cir.  1991).     The  appellant  committed

            violations of both  21 U.S.C.    841 and 21  U.S.C.   960  in

            April 1987.   His sentences  of 25 years  of imprisonment  on

            each of the four  counts, to be served concurrently,  and his

            sentences of  20  years  of supervised  release  on  the  two

            substantive counts, to be served concurrently, are lawful and

            his arguments  to the contrary  are foreclosed by  the above-

            cited precedent.

                 Appellant appears  also to argue that  amendments to the

            penalty  provisions  of  21  U.S.C.       846  and  963  (the

            coordinate  conspiracy provisions),  enacted on  November 18,

            1988, were unlawfully applied to him.  Even  if intended as a

            separate argument,  however, we have  rejected it in  a prior

            post-conviction  appeal brought  by  one of  appellant's  co-

            defendants.   United  States v.  Sigifredo Gonzalez,  No. 90-
                          ______________     __________________

            1088, slip op.  at 3-6 (1st Cir. Sept. 11,  1990).  We reject


















            it  here  as well  for the  reasons  stated in  that Gonzalez
                                                                 ________

            opinion.

                 The  order  of the  district  court  denying this  post-

            conviction motion is affirmed.

                 Affirmed.
                 _________











































                                         -3-