Notice: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 States Unpublished Opinions May Be Cited Only in Related Cases.alvaro Rafael Marquez-bolano, Petitioner, Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent, Appellee, 991 F.2d 786 (1st Cir. 1993)

Contrary to appellant's contention, the supervised release provision of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (ADAA), Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, 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 (controlled substance on board vessel subject to jurisdiction of United States). Padilla Palacios v. United States, 932 F.2d 31, 33-34 (1st Cir. 1991). The appellant is not eligible for parole and his sentence, which included a 5 year term of supervised release, was lawful.

The judgment of the district court, dated September 23, 1992, and the amended judgment, dated October 1, 1992, are affirmed.