United States v. Caron Faherty

INTRODUCTION

Faherty was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. § 952 (a), importation of heroin, and 21 U.S.C. § 844 , possession of heroin, following trial to the court on stipulated facts. On Count I, importation of heroin, Faherty was sentenced to a five year term of custody, receiving a mandatory special parole term of three years. Execution of the sentence was suspended conditioned on three years probation and 120 days confinement in a jail-type institution. On Count II, the imposition of sentence was suspended with appellant placed on three year probation concurrent with Count I.

On December 15, 1981 we remanded to the district court with instructions to hold a post-conviction hearing to determine whether Faherty voluntarily consented to an x-ray search. United States v. Faherty, No. 81-1253. The district court held an evidentiary hearing, entered findings of fact and the case has been returned for disposition.

FACTS

During the primary inspection, a customs inspector ascertained that Faherty was returning from a source country (Thailand), was self-employed and was overly friendly and helpful. Faherty was escorted to a secondary search area for a more intensive examination.…

concurring.

I concur with the opinion, and its result. I add some comments on the “special parole term” issue.

Faherty received a typical “split” sentence on the importation count. Five years in prison, the first 120 days in jail and the balance suspended, with three years probation. All of this is a routine kind of sentence, authorized by 18 U.S.C. § 3651 . (She also received a “straight” probation sentence of 3 years on the possession count, the probation to run concurrently with that on the importation count.) But the sentencing judge provided, also, on the importation count, that there should be a special parole term (SPT) of three years. Presumably, the sentencing judge believed that he was required to impose a SPT in view of the provisions of 21 U.S.C. § 960 , which provides that “If a sentence under this paragraph provides for imprisonment, the sentence shall indicate a special parole term.” (Emphasis supplied).

Ironically, however, unless Faherty violates her split sentence probation, is revoked for such violation, and the original five year sentence (or some portion of it at least one year and a day in length), comes into play, she will never serve the “special parole…

692 F.2d 1258 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Caron FAHERTY, Defendant-Appellant. No. 82-1130. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted July 13, 1982. Decided Nov. 22, 1982. Doron Weinberg, Larson, Weinberg & Harris, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Joan S. Brennan, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Before KENNEDY and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, * District Judge. SKOPIL, Circuit Judge: INTRODUCTION 1 Faherty was convicted of violating 21 U.S.C. Sec. 952 (a), importation of heroin, and 21 U.S.C. Sec. 844 , possession of heroin, following trial to the court on stipulated facts. On Count I, importation of heroin, Faherty was sentenced to a five year term of custody, receiving a mandatory special parole term of three years. Execution of the sentence was suspended conditioned on three years probation and 120 days confinement in a jail-type institution. On Count II, the imposition of sentence was suspended with appellant placed on three year probation concurrent with Count I. 2 On December 15, 1981 we remanded to the…