United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Rene Martinez-arellano, Defendant-appellant, 91 F.3d 156 (9th Cir. 1996)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit - 91 F.3d 156 (9th Cir. 1996) Submitted June 25, 1996. *Decided June 28, 1996

Before: NOONAN, LEAVY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.


MEMORANDUM** 

Rene Martinez-Arellano, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to set aside his sentence imposed following his guilty plea to importation and attempted importation of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952, 960, and 963. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291, 2255. We review de novo, United States v. Frazer, 18 F.3d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 1994), and affirm.

Martinez-Arellano contends that the district court erred by imposing a special parole term because his conviction does not authorize the imposition of a special parole term. Although a special parole term may not be imposed for a violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963, United States v. Bourdon, 624 F.2d 77, 77 (9th Cir. 1980), Martinez-Arellano was also convicted, pursuant to his guilty plea, of the substantive crime of importing heroin under 21 U.S.C. § 952. A special parole term was specifically authorized for such a violation at the time Martinez-Arellano was sentenced. See 21 U.S.C. § 960(b) (1981). Accordingly, the imposition of Martinez-Arellano's special parole term was proper.

AFFIRMED.

 *

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.