28 C.F.R. § 2.16

Parole of prisoner in state, local, or territorial institution

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

(a) Any person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment for any offense against the United States, but who is confined therefor in a state reformatory or other state or territorial institution, shall be eligible for parole by the Commission on the same terms and conditions, by the same authority, and subject to recommittal for the violation of such parole, as though he were confined in a Federal penitentiary, reformatory, or other correctional institution.

(b) Federal prisoners serving concurrent state and Federal sentences in state, local, or territorial institutions shall be furnished upon request parole application forms. Upon receipt of the application and any supplementary classification material submitted by the institution, parole consideration shall be made by an examiner panel of the appropriate region on the record only. If such prisoner is released from his state sentence prior to a Federal grant of parole, he shall be given a personal hearing as soon as feasible after receipt at a Federal institution.

(c) Prisoners who are serving Federal sentences exclusively but who are being boarded in State, local, or territorial institutions may be provided hearings at such facilities or may be transferred by the Bureau of Prisons to Federal Institutions for hearings by examiner panels of the Commission.

(18 U.S.C. 4203, 4204) [42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 45 FR 44924, July 2, 1980; 50 FR 36424, Sept. 6, 1985]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1968–2022 · leading case: Bobby Ray Jones v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, C.A. Turner, Warden, McFp U.S. Parole Comm'n, 903 F.2d 1178 (8th Cir. 1990).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bobby Ray Jones v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, C.A. Turner, Warden, McFp U.S. Parole Comm'n, 903 F.2d 1178 (8th Cir. 1990). “28 C.F.R. § 2.16 (b). Despite two requests, the Commission failed to hold any type of hearing until almost six years later.”

Cerro Metal Prods. v. Marshall, 467 F. Supp. 869 (E.D. Pa. 1979). “14 , describing the reports to be considered by the Board in passing on parole applications, and 28 CFR § 2.16 , providing that hearings on parole applications should “not be open to the public” and that the prisoner should not be represented “by counsel or by any other person.”

Ott v. Ciccone, 326 F. Supp. 609 (W.D. Mo. 1970). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.16 to the following effect: “No prisoner, including juveniles and committed youth offenders, appearing at any hearing, other than a revocation hearing, shall be represented by counsel or by any other person.”

United States v. Lawrence Francis McBride, 560 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1977). “Under 28 C.F.R. § 2.16 (1976), when a federal prisoner is serving concurrent state and federal sentences in a state institution, parole consideration is by an examiner panel of the appropriate region “on the record only”.”

Abrahams v. United States, 465 F. Supp. 610 (D.N.H. 1979). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 2.16 (c) (1978). Another category, comprised of prisoners serving concurrent state and federal sentences in a state institution, is entitled to parole consideration on the record only.”

Barradale v. United States Bd. of Paroles & Pardons, 362 F. Supp. 338 (M.D. Penn. 1973). “The hearings described in this section and the preceding section shall not be open to the public, and the records of all such hearings shall be treated as confidential and shall not be open to inspection by the prisoner concerned or any other unauthorized person.”

Walker v. Luther, 830 F.2d 1208 (2d Cir. 1987). “Law § 104(f) (McKinney 1987)); 28 C.F.R. § 2.16 (a) (U.S.Code violator serving a sentence in a state institution “shall be eligible for parole by the Commission on the same terms and conditions .”

Schawartzberg v. United States Bd. of Parole, 399 F.2d 297 (10th Cir. 1968). “28 C.F.R. § 2.16 . Appellant has cited no authority nor have we found any which causes us to seriously question the constitutionality of this regulation.”

Ernie Lee Buchanan v. J. J. Clark, Warden, No. 71-2187 Summary Calendar. (1) Rule 18. 5th Cir.: See Isbell Enter., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. Of New York, 5th Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Parti, 446 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1971). “In either event, petitioner's contentions in this regard are without merit.”

Ernie Lee Buchanan v. J. J. Clark, Warden, 446 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1971). “The facts alleged in the petition are not clear as to whether petitioner attempted to retain counsel or to have counsel appointed for him. In either event, petitioner’s contentions in this regard are without merit.”

Woods v. United States of Am. (E.D. Mich. 2022). · cites it 2× “Constitution by unreasonably failing to comply with 18 USC 4205(b)(2) as construed by 28 CFR 2.16 and 28 CFR 2.16-04. IV. Because his actual innocence exists since no fed[eral k]idnapping occurred, Petitioner’s conviction was fundamentally unfair and an egregious abuse of…”

Israel Schawartzberg v. United States Bd. of Parole & the Attorney Gen. of the United States, Israel Schawartzberg v. Warden of U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 399 F.2d 297 (10th Cir. 1968). “28 C.F.R. 2.16. Appellant has cited no authority nor have we found any which causes us to seriously question the constitutionality of this regulation.”

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.