28 C.F.R. § 2.15
Petition for consideration of parole prior to date set at hearing
When a prisoner has served the minimum term of imprisonment required by law, the Bureau of Prisons may petition the responsible Regional Commissioner for reopening the case under § 2.28(a) and consideration for parole prior to the date set by the Commission at the initial or review hearing. The petition must show cause why it should be granted, i.e., an emergency, hardship, or the existence of other extraordinary circumstances that would warrant consideration of early parole.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1969–2022 · leading case: Lupo v. Norton, 371 F. Supp. 156 (D. Conn. 1974).
Lupo v. Norton, 371 F. Supp. 156 (D. Conn. 1974). “52 , and (b) a requirement that a prisoner denied parole receive in writing the reasons for the decision, see *158 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 (c) (revised). 1 These aspects of the new procedure are detailed in Battle v.”
Diaz v. Norton, 376 F. Supp. 112 (D. Conn. 1974). “This decision to confine petitioner beyond the guideline period might have been reached by the Board solely because of the second stated reason concerning his crime pattern and drug use in the community.”
Robert J. Scarpa v. U. S. Bd. of Parole, Walter Dunbar, Chairman, 477 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1973). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 . What is required by the regulations is precisely what Scarpa alleges did not occur and there is no contradiction — except in the government’s brief.”
Cerro Metal Prods. v. Marshall, 467 F. Supp. 869 (E.D. Pa. 1979). “” On the other hand, it is hardly surprising that Judge Hastie viewed as “clearly within the procedure and practice exemption” a rule ( 28 CFR § 2.15 ) which provided for regularly scheduled parole hearings at every federal correctional institution at which persons serving…”
Robert J. Scarpa v. U. S. Bd. of Parole, Walter Dunbar, Chairman, 468 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1972). “Subsequently the parole examiner considers the file, prepares a report, including a recommendation, and submits it to the Board of Parole, which takes final action in the case [citing 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 ].” It must be noted that what the trial court stated to be facts applicable…”
Battle v. Norton, 365 F. Supp. 925 (D. Conn. 1973). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 (a)(1) (revised). Petitioner reads the second criterion as if it were protection of society from future acts of the inmate.”
Wiley v. United States Bd. of Parole, 380 F. Supp. 1194 (M.D. Penn. 1974). “The reason requirement was originally instituted experimentally in October 1972, and then formalized as to the Northeast Region in a regulation effective October 1, 1973, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 (revised), 38 Fed.Reg. 26652 (1973).”
DeVyver v. Warden, US Penitentiary, 388 F. Supp. 1213 (M.D. Penn. 1974). “’ 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 (a)(1) (revised). Petitioner reads the second criterion as if it were protection of society from future acts of the inmate.”
Grasso v. Norton, 376 F. Supp. 116 (D. Conn. 1974). “28 C.F.R. § 2.15 . Both the inmate and his representative have a right to be present.”
Albert Garza v. Warden Allenwood USP (3rd Cir. 2022). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 (1973). In 1976, Congress significantly revised the parole regime for federal inmates.”
French v. Ciccone, 308 F. Supp. 256 (W.D. Mo. 1969). “That regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 , reads as follows: “Hearings at institution.”
Biancone v. Norton, 421 F. Supp. 1043 (D. Conn. 1976). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 , as amended 38 Fed.Reg.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.15(b)(1) — 1 case
Lupo v. Norton, 371 F. Supp. 156 (D. Conn. 1974). “52 , and (b) a requirement that a prisoner denied parole receive in writing the reasons for the decision, see *158 28 C.F.R. § 2.15 (c) (revised). 1 These aspects of the new procedure are detailed in Battle v.”
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.