U.S. v. Dankert
| Decision Date | 22 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74-3282,74-3282 |
| Citation | 507 F.2d 190 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Michael DANKERT, Defendant-Appellant. Summary Calendar. * *Rule 18, 5 Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
J. V. Eskenazi, Federal Public Defender (Court-appointed), Michael L. Brodsky, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Robert W. Rust, U.S. Atty., Donald L. Ferguson, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before BELL, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a part of the sentence imposed as a result of a plea of guilty to a charge of conspiring, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 963, to import cocaine, a Schedule II narcotic controlled substance, into the United States, a violation of 21 U.S.C.A. 952(a). The complaint is to that part of the sentence imposing a special parole term of three years following release from incarceration.
It is conceded that a special parole term following incarceration is mandatory under 21 U.S.C.A. 960(b)(1), upon conviction of a substantive violation of 952(a)(1). The argument is that the conspiracy statute, 963, does not include the special parole term provision of 960(b)(1). We disagree. 963 provides:
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense defined in this subchapter is punishable by imprisonment or fine or both which may not exceed the maximum punishment prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
The punishment provision of 963 must be considered in light of 952(a) and 960, since it is these statutes which define the offense which was the object of the conspiracy, and provide for punishment therefor. They provide:
952(a) It shall be unlawful to import into the customs territory of the United States from any place outside thereof (but within the United States), or to import into the United States from any place outside thereof, any controlled substance in schedule i or II of subchapter I of this chapter 960(a)(1)
Any person who--
contrary to section 952, 953, or 957 of this title, knowingly or intentionally imports or exports a controlled substance, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. 960(b)(1)
In the case of a violation under subs...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Bienvenue
...1978); United States v. Jacobson, 578 F.2d 863 (10th Cir. 1978); United States v. Rich, 518 F.2d 980 (8th Cir. 1975); United States v. Dankert, 507 F.2d 190 (5th Cir. 1975). But see United States v. Mearns, 599 F.2d 1296 (3d Cir. 1979); Fassette v. United States, 444 F.Supp. 1245 (C.D.Cal.1......
-
Bifulco v. United States
...863, 867-868 (CA10), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. 324, 58 L.Ed.2d 327 (1978). It also relied on the decision in United States v. Dankert, 507 F.2d 190 (CA5 1975), which reached a similar result with respect to the closely analogous sentencing provisions of § 1013 of the Act, 21 U.S.......
-
U.S. v. Sellers
...578 F.2d 863, 868 (10th Cir. 1978), Cert. denied, 439 U.S. 932, 99 S.Ct. 324, 58 L.Ed.2d 327 (1978). Accord, United States v. Dankert, 507 F.2d 190, 191 (5th Cir. 1975) (upholding a special parole term under 21 U.S.C. § 963 for conspiracy to commit the importation offenses described in 21 U......
-
U.S. v. Houde, 78-5453
...that this court previously held that a special parole term was properly applied to a 21 U.S.C. § 846 sentence in United States v. Dankert, 507 F.2d 190 (5 Cir. 1975). 1 They ask that we re-examine and re-evaluate our prior holding in this regard. We are without authority to overrule a decis......