28 C.F.R. § 2.100

Warrant placed as detainer and dispositional review

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

(a) When a parolee is in the custody of other law enforcement authorities, or is serving a new sentence of imprisonment imposed for a crime committed while on parole or for a violation of some other form of community supervision, a parole violation warrant may be lodged against him as a detainer.

(b) If the parolee is serving a new sentence of imprisonment, and is eligible and has applied for parole under the Commission's jurisdiction, a dispositional revocation hearing shall be scheduled simultaneously with the initial hearing on the new sentence. In such cases, the warrant shall not be executed except upon final order of the Commission following such hearing, as provided in § 2.81(c). In any other cases, the detainer shall be reviewed on the record pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) If the parolee is serving a new sentence of imprisonment that does not include eligibility for parole under the Commission's jurisdiction, the Commission shall review the detainer upon the request of the parolee. Following such review, the Commission may:

(1) Withdraw the detainer and order reinstatement of the parolee to supervision upon release from custody, or close the case if the expiration date has passed.

(2) Order a dispositional revocation hearing to be conducted by a hearing examiner or an official designated by the Commission at the institution in which the parolee is confined. In such case, the warrant shall not be executed except upon final order of the Commission following such hearing.

(3) Let the detainer stand until the new sentence is completed. Following the release of the parolee, and the execution of the Commission's warrant, an institutional revocation hearing shall be conducted after the parolee is returned to federal custody.

(d) Dispositional revocation hearings pursuant to this section shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions at § 2.103 governing institutional revocation hearings, except that a hearing conducted at a state or local facility may be conducted by a hearing examiner, hearing examiner panel, or other official designated by the Commission. Following a revocation hearing conducted pursuant to this section, the Commission may take any action specified in § 2.105.

(1) The date the violation term commences is the date the Commission's warrant is executed. It shall be the policy of the Commission that the parolee's violation term (i.e., the unexpired term that remained to be served at the time the parolee was last released on parole) shall start to run only upon his release from the confinement portion of the sentence for the new offense, or the date of reparole granted pursuant to this subpart, whichever comes first.

(2) A parole violator whose parole is revoked shall be given credit for all time in confinement resulting from any new offense or violation that is considered by the Commission as a basis for revocation, but solely for the limited purpose of satisfying the time ranges in the reparole guidelines at § 2.81. The computation of the prisoner's sentence, and forfeiture of time on parole pursuant to D.C. Code 24-406(c), is not affected by such guideline credit.

[65 FR 45888, July 26, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 41531, July 14, 2003; 74 FR 28605, June 17, 2009]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Brooks v. United States Parole Comm'n, 510 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Brooks v. United States Parole Comm'n, 510 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D.D.C. 2007). · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.100 (c). Following such review, the Commission may elect any one of the following options: (1) Withdraw the detainer and order reinstatement of the parolee to supervision upon release from custody, or close the case if the expiration date has passed.”

Ramsey v. Reilly, 613 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2009). “100 (a) (“When a parolee is in the custody of other law enforcement authorities, or is serving a new sentence of imprisonment imposed for a crime committed while on parole or for a violation of some other form of community supervision, a parole violation warrant may be lodged…”

Munn-Bey v. United States Parole Comm'n, 824 F. Supp. 2d 144 (D.D.C. 2011). “28 C.F.R. § 2.100 (a)-(b). Indeed, this Court has previously approved the constitutionality of that practice.”

Hunter v. Jamison (D.N.J. 2023). · cites it 2× “Initially, 28 C.F.R. § 2.100 (a) states: “[w]hen a parolee is in the custody of other law enforcement authorities, or is serving a new sentence of imprisonment imposed for a crime committed while on parole or for a violation of some other form of community supervision, a parole…”

Ball (D. Maryland 2026). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.100 (d)(1). Thus, Ball’s remaining time in custody from before that date but not applied to the misdemeanor theft sentence, specifically, the periods from February 18 to April 11, 2011 and from April 13 to July 14, 2011, were credited to his present sentence.”

El v. Faust (D.D.C. 2014). “# 11] at 1-2, citing 28 C.F.R. § 2.100 .) He contends nonetheless that his release to a halfway house on February 21, 2014, triggered the time to execute the warrant since “the CPI trial manual .”

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.