United States v. Michael Allen Schanning

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 9397·941 F.2d 807·1991 WL 143828·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 17095·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6060
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 1, 199191-15111California711 words

Opinion

Opinion

Michael Allen Schanning, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Schanning pleaded guilty on April 14, 1988 to conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 2 kilograms of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 846 and was sentenced on June 14, 1988 to forty-eight months in prison and sixty months of supervised release. In his section 2255 motion, he alleged that the trial court erred in imposing a term of supervised release in addition to his prison sentence. We affirm.

Schanning relies on Bifulco v. United States, 447 U.S. 381 , 100 S.Ct. 2247 , 65 L.Ed.2d 205 (1980) as support for his argument that the trial court erred in imposing a term of supervised release. The Bifulco Court held that the terms of section 846 then in effect (and which also apply to Schanning) did not permit a sentencing court to impose a special parole term in addition to imprisonment because the statute provided for punishment only by imprisonment or fine or both and did not authorize special penalty provisions. 447 U.S. at 403 , 100 S.Ct. at 2260 .

Although the terms of section 846 that apply to Schanning’s sentencing do not expressly…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.