McFadden v. United States
Opinion
923 F.2d 862
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
Robert McFADDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 90-35412.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 11, 1991. * Decided Jan. 15, 1991.
Before SNEED, HUG and NOONAN, Circuit Judges.
1
MEMORANDUM ** 2
Robert McFadden, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 motion to correct his sentence. McFadden contends that the district court erred in imposing a five-year special parole term. We review de novo, United States v. Angelone, 894 F.2d 1129, 1130 (9th Cir.1990), and affirm.
3
On December 11, 1986, McFadden pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841 (a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). McFadden committed this offense on October 14, 1986. On May 22, 1987, the district court sentenced him to a five-year term of imprisonment to be followed by a five-year special parole term.
4
McFadden's contention that the statute applicable to the offense he committed did not authorize a special parole term is meritless. McFadden pleaded guilty to a violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (b)(1)(B). The version of section 841(b)(1)(B) in effect when McFadden committed the offense imposed a mandatory special parole term of at least three years. See 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (b)(1)(B) (1982 & Supp.III 1985). 1 Accordingly, the five-year special parole term was lawfully imposed on McFadden, and the district properly denied his section 2255 motion.
5
AFFIRMED.
* The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for disposition without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4 ** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3 1
McFadden's reliance on this court's decision in United States v. Torres, 880 F.2d 113 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 873 (1990), is misplaced. Torres held that 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841 (b)(1)(A) as amended on October 12, 1984, did not authorize special parole terms for offenses punishable under that section committed before October 27, 1986. Id. at 114-15. McFadden, however, pleaded guilty to an offense punishable under section 841(b)(1)(B) and accordingly was sentenced under that section
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 6 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“Because the CHP is a state agency . . . and 28 the State of California has not consented to suit . . . both the State and the CHP enjoy sovereign 1 41(b)
-
(“Because the CHP is a state agency ... 26 and the State of California has not consented to suit ... both the State and the CHP enjoy 27 sovereign immunity and cannot be sued under section 1983.”)
-
(“Presented with only the bare assertion that the information . . . was 16 in the hands of the government, the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to 17 authorize a fishing expedition . . . .”)
Cited by 21 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Denise Thomas & Willie Lavon Thomas v. Newton International Enterprises Southern Shipping Management (Chile) Ltd.
- Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Lewis Galoob Toys, Inc.
- In re Grand Jury Subpoenas 04-124-03 & 04-124-05
- State ex rel. Eckstein v. Midwest Pride IV
- Easter v. Commissioner
- Hyde v. Commissioner
Most recent
- Jieyuan Tan v. California Highway Patrol
- Dilon Andrew Dalton Hess v. San Diego District Attorney, Summer Stephan, Katia Davila, CHP Oceanside, CHP San Diego, Oceanside Police Dep't
- Jonathan Peterson v. California Highway Patrol
- Andrew W. Shalaby v. California Highway Patrol
- (PC) Rayburn v. California Highway Patrol
- (PS) Creel v. Sacramento County Sheriff Department
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.