
USCA1 Opinion

	




          April 13, 1993                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 92-2278                            ALVARO RAFAEL MARQUEZ-BOLANO,                                Petitioner, Appellant,                                          v.                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                                Respondent, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO                  [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge]                                                ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Breyer, Chief Judge,                                         ___________                          Torruella and Cyr, Circuit Judges.                                             ______________                                 ____________________            Alvaro Rafael Marquez-Bolano on brief pro se.            ____________________________            Daniel  F. Lopez  Romo, United  States Attorney,  Ivan  Dominquez,            ______________________                            _______________        Assistant United States Attorney,  and Jose A. Quiles-Espinosa, Senior                                               _______________________        Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                 Per  Curiam.   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.            _________
