28 C.F.R. § 2.14

Subsequent proceedings

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

(a) Interim proceedings. The purpose of an interim hearing required by 18 U.S.C. 4208(h) shall be to consider any significant developments or changes in the prisoner's status that may have occurred subsequent to the initial hearing.

(1) Notwithstanding a previously ordered presumptive release date or fifteen year reconsideration hearing, interim hearings shall be conducted pursuant to the procedures of § 2.13(b), (c), (e), and (f) at the following intervals from the date of the last hearing:

(i) In the case of a prisoner with a maximum term or terms of less than seven years, every eighteen months (until released);

(ii) In the case of a prisoner with a maximum term or terms of seven years or more, every twenty-four months (until released);

(iii) In the case of a prisoner with an unsatisfied minimum term, the first interim hearing shall be scheduled under paragraphs (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, or on the docket of hearings that is nine months prior to the month of parole eligibility, whichever is later.

(2) Following an interim hearing, the Commission may:

(i) Order no change in the previous decision;

(ii) Advance a presumptive release date, or the date of a fifteen year reconsideration hearing. However, it shall be the policy of the Commission that once set, a presumptive release date or the date of a fifteen year reconsideration hearing shall be advanced only:

(1) For superior program achievement under the provisions of § 2.60; or

(2) For other clearly exceptional circumstances.

(iii) Retard or rescind a presumptive parole date for reason of disciplinary infractions. In a case in which disciplinary infractions have occurred, the interim hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures of § 2.34(c) through (f). (Prior to each interim hearing, prisoners shall be notified on the progress report furnished by the Bureau of Prisons that any finding of misconduct by the Discipline Hearing Officer since the previous hearing will be considered for possible action under this paragraph);

(iv) If a presumptive date falls within nine months after the date of an interim hearing, the Commission may treat the interim hearing as a prerelease review in lieu of the record review required by paragraph (b) of this section.

(b) Pre-release reviews. The purpose of a pre-release review shall be to determine whether the conditions of a presumptive release date by parole have been satisfied.

(1) At least sixty days prior to a presumptive parole date, the case shall be reviewed on the record, including a current institutional progress report.

(2) Following review, the Regional Commissioner may:

(i) Approve the parole date;

(ii) Advance or retard the parole date for purpose of release planning as provided by § 2.28(e);

(iii) Retard the parole date or commence rescission proceedings as provided by § 2.34;

(iv) Advance the parole date for superior program achievement under the provisions of § 2.60.

(3) A pre-release review pursuant to this section shall not be required if an in-person hearing has been held within nine months of the parole date.

(4) Where:

(i) There has been no finding of misconduct by an Institutional Disciplinary Committee nor any allegation of criminal conduct since the last hearing; and

(ii) No other modification of the release date appears warranted, the Executive Hearing Examiner may act for the Regional Commissioner under paragraph (b)(2) of this section to approve conversion of the presumptive parole date to an effective date of parole.

(c) Fifteen year reconsideration hearings. A fifteen year reconsideration hearing shall be a full reassessment of the case pursuant to the procedures at § 2.13.

(1) A fifteen year reconsideration hearing shall be ordered following initial hearing in any case in which a release date is not set.

(2) Following a fifteen year reconsideration hearing, the Commission may take any one of the actions authorized by § 2.12(b).

[46 FR 39136, July 31, 1981; 47 FR 25735, June 15, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 9247, Mar. 4, 1983; 48 FR 44525, Sept. 29, 1983; 49 FR 34208, Aug. 29, 1984; 55 FR 290, Jan. 4, 1990; 60 FR 51350, Oct. 2, 1995; 68 FR 41529, July 14, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 61 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case: Dufur v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 314 F. Supp. 3d 10 (D.C. Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dufur v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 314 F. Supp. 3d 10 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “In that setting, he argued that the Commission (1) lacked "jurisdiction" over his escape from federal custody in 1979 because it occurred prior to the imposition of a sentence on the federal changes; (2) violated 28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (b)(4)(i) by using the state and federal escapes…”

Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (c), 15-year reconsideration hearings are "full reassessment[s] of the [prisoner's] case.”

United States of Am. Ex Rel. Robert Graham v. The United States Parole Comm'n, 629 F.2d 1040 (5th Cir. 1980). · cites it 6× “28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (1974). 1 In 1976, Congress passed the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act of 1976, 18 U.”

John J. Rodriguez v. United States Parole Comm'n & Metro. Corr. Ctr., Robert Elsea, Warden, 594 F.2d 170 (7th Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (e) (1977). After Rodriguez had committed the offenses for which he was convicted, but before he was sentenced, Congress adopted the Parole Commission and Reorganization Act, 90 Stat.”

Victor Bono v. Michael Benov, Warden, United States Parole Comm'n, 197 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 4× “The government contends that the victim letter constituted “new and significant adverse information,” which served as objective evidence justifying the extension of Bono’s presumptive parole date. Although the Commission did not expressly rely on or refer to the victim letter in…”

Christopher Furnari v. Warden, Allenwood Fed. Corr. Inst. United States Parole Comm'n M.D. Of Pa United States Attorney, 218 F.3d 250 (3rd Cir. 2000). · cites it 3× “§ 4208 (h); 28 C.F.R. § 2.14 . At that hearing, Furnari’s counsel presented all of the new information demonstrating the government’s doubts about Casso’s reliability.”

Frank Grasso, Appellee-Petitioner v. John J. Norton, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Danbury, Connecticut, Appellants-Respondents, 520 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1975). · cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (b). Grasso II and Garafola v.”

Furnari v. United States Parole Comm'n, 531 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “§ 4208 (h) and 28 C.F.R. § 2.14 . During the hearing Fur-nari argued that Casso’s information was unreliable and he presented an affidavit from an assistant United States attorney supporting his contention.”

Gometz v. United States Parole Comm'n, 294 F.3d 1256 (10th Cir. 2002). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 2.14 . Depending on the evidence presented at the interim hearing, the Commission may advance, delay, or even rescind a presumptive parole date, or, in special circumstances, it may advance the date of the 15-year reconsideration hearing.”

Robert J. Andrino v. United States Bd. of Parole, 550 F.2d 519 (9th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (d) (1974). 2 Andrino filed a motion for modification of sentence under 28 U.”

John W. Young v. United States Parole Comm'n, John W. Allman, Superintendent, Etc., 682 F.2d 1105 (5th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (a)(1)(ii). “However, in the case of a prisoner with an unsatisfied minimum term, the first interim hearing shall be deferred until the docket of hearings immediately preceding the month of parole eligibility.”

Douglas Glynn Payton, Adm'r of the Est. of Sheryl Lynn Payton, Deceased v. The United States of Am., 679 F.2d 475 (5th Cir. 1982). “28 C.F.R. § 2.14 (1980). To the extent permitted by the sentence, the Parole Commission uses its own criteria for determining the appropriate length of incarceration.”

Show all 61 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.14(a) — 1 case

Webb-EL v. United States Parole Comm'n (D. Or. 2024).

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.14(b) — 1 case

Foddrell v. Sigler, 418 F. Supp. 324 (M.D. Penn. 1976).

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.