C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 2—PAROLE, RELEASE, SUPERVISION AND RECOMMITMENT OF PRISONERS, YOUTH OFFENDERS, AND JUVENILE DELINQUENTS › Subpart A—United States Code Prisoners and Parolees

28 C.F.R. § 2.10

Date service of sentence commences

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

(a) Service of a sentence of imprisonment commences to run on the date on which the person is received at the penitentiary, reformatory, or jail for service of the sentence: Provided, however, That any such person shall be allowed credit toward the service of his sentence for any days spent in custody in connection with the offense or acts for which sentence was imposed.

(b) The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for civil contempt shall interrupt the running of any sentence of imprisonment being served at the time the sentence of civil contempt is imposed, and the sentence or sentences so interrupted shall not commence to run again until the sentence of civil contempt is lifted.

(c) Service of the sentence of a committed youth offender or person committed under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act commences to run from the date of conviction and is interrupted only when such prisoner or parolee:

(1) Is on court-ordered bail;

(2) Is in escape status;

(3) Has absconded from parole supervision; or

(4) Comes within the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section.

[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 47 FR 36634, Aug. 23, 1982]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases, 1976–2002 · leading case: Henrique v. United States Marshal, 476 F. Supp. 618 (N.D. Cal. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Henrique v. United States Marshal, 476 F. Supp. 618 (N.D. Cal. 1979). · cites it 8× “19327 (1976) codified at 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (b) (1976). As amended in 1977 the regulation now reads: Service of the sentence of a committed youth offender .”
Robert Ogg v. Frank X. Klein, United States Marshal, N. Dist. of California, 572 F.2d 1379 (9th Cir. 1978). · cites it 7× “§ 5017 (c)? (2) Would application of a Bureau of Prisons regulation added in 1976, 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (b), to Ogg violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws? IV.”
United States v. Allen, 17 M.J. 126 (1984). “) 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (a) (1980). U.S.B.P. Policy Statement 7600.”
John Riley Henrique v. United States Marshal & United States Parole Comm'n, Respondents, 653 F.2d 1317 (9th Cir. 1981). · cites it 4× “28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (c) (emphasis added). The regulation was not in effect at the time Henrique absconded, however, and the Government does not argue that it should apply here.”
Edwin P. Wilson v. United States Parole Comm'n J.T. Holland, Warden, 193 F.3d 195 (3rd Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “Since, however, the same Parole Commission regulations at 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 define sentence commencement as “the date on which the person is received at the penitentiary .”
George Freeman Causey v. Benjamin R. Civiletti, Attorney Gen., 621 F.2d 691 (5th Cir. 1980). “See also 28 CFR § 2.10 (a) (1979). Croft involved a petitioner who, while out on bond awaiting trial in federal court, was arrested on state charges.”
Caballery v. United States Parole Comm'n, 673 F.2d 43 (2d Cir. 1982). · cites it 7× “28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (c) (1980). Caballery contends that the express language of 18 U.”
Lyman T. Shepard v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 322 (2d Cir. 1976). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (b) and 2.52(d)(1) (currently in effect); 28 C.”
United States v. DeLeon, 53 M.J. 658 (A.C.C.A. 2000). · cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (a) (1980) (emphasis added).”
United States v. Richard G. Naas, 755 F.2d 1133 (5th Cir. 1985). “§ 3568 ; 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (a). 3 The district court, however, ordered that Naas’ federal sentences “run concurrently with the sentence defendant is now serving as a result of the conviction in the State of Louisiana____’ This effectively designated where Naas was to be confined,…”
Anthony J. Garafola v. G.C. Wilkinson, Warden. G.C. Wilkinson, 721 F.2d 420 (3rd Cir. 1983). “See also 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 . 3 . Appellee points to the definition of “parole” in 18 U.”
United States v. Sherman, 56 M.J. 900 (A.F.C.C.A. 2002). “at 128 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 2.10 (a) (1980)) (emphasis added).”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.10(c) — 1 case
United States v. Thomas M. Robinson, Jr., 720 F.2d 203 (D.C. Cir. 1983).
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.