JAMEEL-ISMAIL HASSAN SAAHIR, PETITIONER V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

   No. 90-7144

   In The Supreme Court Of The United States

   October Term, 1990

   On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of
Appeals For The Tenth Circuit

   Brief For The United States In Opposition

                             OPINION BELOW

   The court of appeals opinion (Pet. App. 1A-4A) is not reported.

                             JURISDICTION

   The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on November 14,
1990.  The petition for a writ of certiorari was filed on February 6,
1991.  The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C.
1254(1).

                          QUESTION PRESENTED

   Whether petitioner was properly sentenced to terms of special
parole under 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(4) (1982, Supp. IV 1986) for offenses
committed in June and August 1987.

                               STATEMENT

   After a bench trial in the District of Colorado, petitioner was
convicted on one count of conspiracy to import marijuana, in violation
of 21 U.S.C. 963, and on two counts of importing and aiding the
importation of less than 50 kilograms of marijuana in violation of 21
U.S.C. 952, 960, based on offenses committed between April 1987 and
September 1987.  Pet. 6;  Pet. App. 2A-3A.  He was sentenced on the
latter two counts under the applicable penalty provision, 21 U.S.C.
960(b)(4) (1982, Supp. IV 1986), as modified by the Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, Tit. I, Section 1302, 100 Stat.
3207-15 (Oct. 27, 1986), to two consecutive terms of three years'
imprisonment, to be followed by two consecutive two-year terms of
special parole.  He was also sentenced to a concurrent five-year term
of imprisonment on the conspiracy count.  The court of appeals
affirmed the convictions and sentences.  Pet. App. 2A.

   2. Petitioner filed a motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) to
correct his sentence by striking the four year term of special parole,
arguing that at the time he committed his offense there was no
authority for the court to impose a term of special parole.  The
district court denied that motion on April 11, 1990, without
discussion.  Pet. App. 2A.

   3. The court of appeals affirmed the denial of petitioner's Rule 35
motion.  Apparently following the approach of petitioner's brief on
appeal, the court of appeals analyzed the sentencing question under 21
U.S.C. 841(b), which contains sentencing provisions for domestic drug
offenses that are parallel to those in 21 U.S.C. 960.  The court noted
that the pertinent sentencing provision was 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(1)(D)
(1982, Supp. IV 1986), which applied to offenses involving less than
50 kilograms of marijuana and prescribed a mandatory minimum term of
two years' special parole.  Pet. App. 3A.  The court recognized that
"(s)tatutory authority for the imposition of special parole under
Section 842(b)(1)(D) persisted until the 'supervised release'
provisions of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act became effective on November 1,
1987, under Section 1004(a) and the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984."
Ibid.  The court concluded that the challenged sentence was therefore
within statutory limits.  Id. at 4A.

                               ARGUMENT

   Petitioner argues (Pet. 8) that there was no statutory authority
for imposing a sentence of post-confinement monitoring during the
period in which he committed his offenses -- that is, between the
enactment of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (ADAA), on October 27,
1986, and November 1, 1987, the date on which petitioner claims that
the ADAA became effective.  In Gozlon-Peretz v. United States, 111 S.
Ct. 840 (1991), this Court held that all of the penalty provisions of
the ADAA, including its provisions for post-confinement monitoring in
the form of special parole or supervised release, became effective
upon enactment on October 27, 1986.  In that case, this Court rejected
the premise of petitioner's argument -- that the effective date of the
post-confinement monitoring provisions of the ADAA was delayed until
November 1, 1987.

   Gozlon-Peretz dealt specifically with offenses for which the ADAA
prescribed terms of post-confinement monitoring in the form of
supervised release.  The ADAA left unaltered certain other penalty
provisions -- including Sections 841(b)(1)(D) and 960(b)(4) -- that
prescribed a term of post-confinement monitoring in the form of
special parole.  See also 21 U.S.C. 841(b)(2), 845(a), 845a(a) (1982,
Supp. IV 1986) & 962(a) (1982).  The version of the penalty provision
that applies to petitioner -- 21 U.S.C. 960(b)(4) -- that was in
effect at the time of petitioner's June and August 1987 offenses
authorized a sentence of at least two years' special parole.  (That
penalty provision parallels the penalties prescribed in 21 U.S.C.
841(b)(1)(D) (1982, Supp. IV 1986) for offenses involving domestic
possession with intent to distribute.) Accordingly, petitioner was
correctly sentenced to four years of special parole on the two
importation counts of conviction and his petition does not raise any
question warranting further review by this Court.

                              CONCLUSION

   The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.

   Respectfully submitted.

   KENNETH W. STARR

      Solicitor General

   ROBERT S. MUELLER, III

      Assistant Attorney General

   RICHARD A. FRIEDMAN

      Attorney

   APRIL 1991