UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 93-1471

                              UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                      Appellee,

                                          v.

                                      JOSE PARA,

                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________


                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

                     [Hon. Francis J. Boyle, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                  Cyr, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                              and Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________



             Damon M. D'Ambrosio and Martin  D. Harris, Esquire, Ltd. on brief
             ___________________     ________________________________
        for appellant.
             Edwin  J. Gale,  United  States  Attorney,  Margaret  E.  Curran,
             ______________                              ____________________
        Assistant  United States Attorney,  and Gerard B.  Sullivan, Assistant
                                                ___________________
        United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   November 8, 1993
                                 ____________________



















                    Per Curiam.   Appellant  Jose Para  was sentenced  to a
                    Per Curiam
                    __________

          three-year  prison term  and  a  three-year  term  of  supervised

          release  on December 1, 1987,  for distributing four and one-half

          ounces  of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1),(b)(1)(-

          C), on  or about  May 6,  1987 ("first  offense").   On or  about

          May 6, 1989,  after Para had  served two years of  the three-year

          prison term, the  United States Parole Commission  authorized his

          release on  parole.  On  February 2, 1992, while still  on super-

          vised  release, Para was  arrested for distributing  a detectable

          amount of heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C.   841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C)

          ("second offense").  In 1993, Para was convicted and sentenced to

          a sixteen-month prison term for  the second offense.  Following a

          violation hearing  before the district  court in the wake  of the

          second offense, Para was sentenced to a consecutive sixteen-month

          prison term for violating the supervised  release term imposed in

          connection with the first offense.

                    We summarily  reject Para's mischaracterization  of the

          plain  language of the  December 1, 1987, judgment  of conviction

          and sentence, as imposing a  term of "special parole" rather than

          a term of "supervised release."  The judgment  explicitly imposed

          "a  term of  supervised  release  for a  period  of three  years"

          following  Para's release from  prison.  Undaunted,  Para insists

          that, in  fact, he must have been sentenced to a "special parole"

          term, because he was paroled  by the United States Parole Commis-

          sion.   "Special  parole," prior  to  its elimination  under  the

          Sentencing  Reform Act  of 1984  (SRA),  Gozlon-Peretz v.  United
                                                   _____________     ______

















          States, 498  U.S. 395, 397 (1991), was a mandatory element in any
          ______                                                     __ ___

          prison sentence imposed for a federal  drug offense.  The form of
          ______ ________

          parole on which  Para was released from prison  in 1989, however,

          is merely a  post-sentencing administrative ruling by  the Parole

          Commission  that the defendant  should be  conditionally released

          into the community prior  to the completion  of the full term  of

          imprisonment imposed by  the sentencing court.  See  Morrissey v.
                                                          ___  _________

          Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 477 (1972).
          ______

                    Para's alternate claim is that the sixteen-month prison

          term the district court imposed in 1993 for committing the second

          offense while on  supervised release is an invalid  ex post facto
                                                              __ ____ _____

          punishment.   See Hammond v. United  States, 786 F.2d  8, 16 (1st
                        ___ _______    ______  ______

          Cir. 1986).  Para reasons that in May of 1987     the date of the

          first offense     a lawful  term of supervised release  could not

          have been imposed, no matter  what the judgment of conviction and

          sentence  stated,  because the  SRA  did  not  take effect  until

          November 1, 1987, well after the commission of the first offense.

                    This claim is  foreclosed by Gozlon-Peretz, which  held
                                                 _____________

          that,  "in the  interim  period  between  October 27,  1986,  and

          November 1, 1987, supervised release applies for all drug offens-

          es in the  categories specified by ADAA   1002"  [Section 1002 of

          the  Anti Drug Abuse  Act of 1986,  Pub. L. No.  99-570, 100 Stat

          3207].  498 U.S. at 409.  Since the first offense was for an ADAA

            1002  violation (distribution  of cocaine  in  violation of  21

          U.S.C.   841(a)(1),(b)(1)(C))  and ADAA    1002 became  effective

          upon  its  enactment on  October  27,  1986, the  district  court


                                          3














          correctly  sentenced Para  to  a  mandatory  term  of  supervised

          release  on December 1,  1987, see  21  U.S.C.   841(a)(1),  (b)-
                                         ___

          (1)(C).

                    The district court judgment is summarily affirmed.  See
                    _________________________________________________   ___

          Loc. R. 27.1. 
          ____________












































                                          4