United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. James Preston Martin, Defendant-appellant, 979 F.2d 858 (10th Cir. 1992)

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Appellant James Preston Martin appeals an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We exercise jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

On May 14, 1986, Mr. Martin pleaded guilty to one violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) in exchange for the following sentence: (1) three years imprisonment; (2) a special assessment of fifty dollars; and (3) five years special parole. Having returned to prison after violating his special parole, Martin requests this court to vacate and set aside his present sentence on the ground that special parole was unauthorized at the time of his sentence.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 was enacted on October 12, 1984, and modified the penalty scheme for federal drug offenders by replacing "special parole" with "supervised release." Pub. L. No. 97-473, tit. II, ch. II, 98 Stat.1987. As amended, however, the effective date of this change was November 1, 1987. See Gozlon-Peret v. United States, 111 S. Ct. 840, 844-45 (1991). Thus, a sentence of special parole was authorized both at the time of the underlying offense and at the time of his conviction.

AFFIRMED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.