28 C.F.R. § 2.1

Definitions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

As used in this part:

(a) The term Commission refers to the U.S. Parole Commission.

(b) The term Commissioner refers to members of the U.S. Parole Commission.

(c) The term National Appeals Board refers to the three-member Commission sitting as a body to decide appeals taken from decisions of a Regional Commissioner, who participates as a member of the National Appeals Board. The Vice Chairman shall be Chairman of the National Appeals Board.

(d) The term National Commissioners refers to the Chairman of the Commission and to the Commissioner who is not serving as the Regional Commissioner in respect to a particular case.

(e) The term Regional Commissioner refers to Commissioners who are assigned to make initial decisions, pursuant to the authority delegated by these rules, in respect to prisoners and parolees in regions defined by the Commission.

(f) The term eligible prisoner refers to any Federal prisoner eligible for parole pursuant to this part and includes any Federal prisoner whose parole has been revoked and who is not otherwise ineligible for parole.

(g) The term parolee refers to any Federal prisoner released on parole or as if on parole pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4164 or 4205(f). The term mandatory release refers to release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4163 and 4164.

(h) The term effective date of parole refers to a parole date that has been approved following an in-person hearing held within nine months of such date, or following a pre-release record review.

(i) All other terms used in this part shall be deemed to have the same meaning as identical or comparable terms as used in chapter 311 of part IV of title 18 of the U.S. Code or 28 CFR chapter I, part 0, subpart V.

[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 43 FR 22707, May 26, 1978; Order No. 960-81, 46 FR 52354, Oct. 27, 1981; 60 FR 51350, Oct. 2, 1995; 61 FR 55743, Oct. 29, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 40 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976). · cites it 2× “The 1976 Act and accompanying regulations, 28 CFR § 2.1 *85 et seq. (1976), incorporate the former procedures with few modifications.”

Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.1 (c),(e). Instead of having separate Regional Commissioners, one of the Parole Commissioners is now assigned “to make initial decisions” as a Regional Commissioner.”

Victor Bono v. Michael Benov, Warden, United States Parole Comm'n, 197 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.1 (e) (1996). Regional Commissioner now is defined as "Commissioners who are assigned to make initial decisions .”

Eugene T. King, Jr. v. John R. Simpson, E. Reg'l Comm'r, United States Parole Comm'n, 189 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 1999). “28 C.F.R. § 2.1 (h) (1998). Before King’s parole date, prison officials on May 8, 1996, remanded King to federal custody at the Metropolitan Deten *286 tion Center (“MDC”) in Brooklyn because they alleged that King violated a condition of the Le Marquis program when he refused…”

Robert J. Andrino v. United States Bd. of Parole, 550 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.1 et seq. (1974). At his initial parole hearing these were applied and he was found ineligible for parole.”

Wilson v. Fullwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2011). “, rather than the regulations that apply to United States Code Prisoners and Parolees set forth at 28 C.F.R. § 2.1 et seq.,” because Plaintiffs “District of Columbia sentences were imposed under the District of Columbia statute, not under the SRA.”

Jerry Wayne Watts v. John T. Hadden, Warden, 651 F.2d 1354 (10th Cir. 1981). “See 28 CFR § 2.1 , et seq. It has issued instructions for the use of those guidelines in its Guideline Application Manual.”

Richard L. Dye v. United States Parole Comm'n, United States of Am., & United States Attorney Gen., 558 F.2d 1376 (10th Cir. 1977). “and 28 C.F.R. § 2.1 et seq. Since the emphasis in the new Act is on increasing procedural safeguards in reducing arbitrary decision-making, the case is reviewed with reference to both versions.”

United States v. Robert Bridges, 760 F.2d 151 (7th Cir. 1985). “, 28 C.F.R. § 2.1 et seq., and the United States Parole Commission’s Rules and Procedures Manual (October 1, 1984).”

Vincent Fardella v. William L. Garrison, Warden Cecil C. McCall Chairman, U.S. Parole Comm'n, 698 F.2d 208 (4th Cir. 1982). “Pursuant to this authority, the Commission has promulgated regulations, codified at 28 C.F.R. § 2.1 et seq., and a Rules and Procedures Manual.”

Gometz v. United States Parole Comm'n, 294 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2002). “26 , which is composed of three members of the Parole Commission, 28 C.F.R. § 2.1 (c). The Board may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision, or order a new hearing.”

Alexander v. United States Parole Comm'n, 514 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2008). “28 C.F.R. § 2.1 (h); 28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (b)(4)(h); 28 C.”

Show all 40 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.