Unpublished Disposition, 921 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1986)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 921 F.2d 282 (9th Cir. 1986)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.David PRICE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-3038.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 30, 1990.* Decided Dec. 19, 1990.

Before WALLACE, SKOPIL and PREGERSON, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

David Price, in an Anders brief,1  appeals the district court's denial of his Rule 35 motion to correct his sentence following a jury trial, for conspiring to distribute and distributing methamphetamine, and using the telephone to facilitate the distribution of methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a) (1), 841(b) (1) (C), and 843(b). Price contends that the district court erred by imposing a special parole term because the relevant provision for special parole was abolished by the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, 98 Stat.1976 (October 12, 1984), making the imposition of such a parole term on him illegal. We reject his contention and affirm.

Price was sentenced pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 841(b) (1) (C). At the time of his offense, that statute provided for a mandatory special parole term of at least two years. Price correctly notes that the special parole provision was deleted by Section 224 of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984; however, that section did not take effect until November 1, 1986, more than one year after Price was sentenced. Thus the four year special parole term was proper. See United States v. Torres, 880 F.2d 113, 114-15 (9th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 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 Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3

 1

Price's counsel moved this court to withdraw as counsel for Price on appeal, contending in an Anders brief, see Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), that Price's appeal was frivolous. This court granted the motion and gave Price the opportunity to submit a supplemental brief on the issue presented in his appeal. Price did not avail himself of that opportunity. His appeal is therefore submitted on the Anders brief