Commencement of Statute

Act comes into Force the Statute becomes Law from the date of Signing

This is in accord with the presumption that statutes become effective at the moment they are signed into law.

See, e.g., United States v. Robles-Pantoja, [1989] USCA5 1785; 887 F.2d 1250, 1257 (5th Cir.1989); Levario, 877 F.2d at 1487; Meyers, 847 F.2d at 1415.

Date where : Not stated

The "effective forthwith" principle does not displace general statutory construction rules, which remain applicable to questions surrounding the time when a statute is to go into effect.

See, e.g., United States v. Shaffer, [1986] USCA9 849;789 F.2d 682, 686 (9th Cir.1986)

(where no date is prescribed for implementation of statute, issue must be resolved under usual tenets of statutory construction); see also United States v. Affleck, [1985] USCA10 109; 765 F.2d 944, 948 (10th Cir.1985)

 Statute :Effective from the date of enactment

The amendments embodied therein have, in general, been held effective from and after the date of enactment (October 27, 1986). See, e.g., United States v. Padilla, [1989] USCA8 194;869 F.2d 372, 381-82 (8th Cir.) (increased penalties applicable to offense committed in March 1987), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 3223, 106 L.Ed.2d 572 (1989); United States v. Posner, [1989] USCA5 197; 865 F.2d 654, 660 (5th Cir.1989) ("no parole" provision of ADAA applies to February 1987 offense)

 see also United States v. Levario, [1989] USCA10 181;877 F.2d 1483, 1487 (10th Cir.1989); United States v. Meyers, [1988] USCA9 517; 847 F.2d 1408, 1414-16 & n. 2 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Smith, [1988] USCA11 444; 840 F.2d 886, 889-90 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 109 S.Ct. 154, 102 L.Ed.2d 125 (1988).