28 C.F.R. § 2.17

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 48 cases, 1961–2020 · leading case: Erasmo Gambino v. E.W. Morris (Warden-Fci Fairton) United States Parole Comm'r, 134 F.3d 156 (3rd Cir. 1998).
Erasmo Gambino v. E.W. Morris (Warden-Fci Fairton) United States Parole Comm'r, 134 F.3d 156 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 4× “The district court stated that this case was referred for "original jurisdiction” consideration pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 . Gambino v. Morris, slip op.”
John Brett Allen v. John T. Hadden, United States Parole Comm'n, 57 F.3d 1529 (10th Cir. 1995). · cites it 6× “Specifically, Petitioner maintains that after he first litigated the parole commission’s determination of his parole eligibility date in Allen I, the parole commission classified him as an original jur- *1539 isdietion ease pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 (b)(3) based on the…”
Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 4× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a). A prisoner may appeal the original jurisdiction decision, but it “shall be submitted as a petition for reconsideration under § 2.”
United States v. Friedland, 879 F. Supp. 420 (D.N.J. 1995). · cites it 3× “The criteria for designating a case as original jurisdiction is set out in 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 . The Commission in this case determined that Friedland was appropriate for original jurisdiction because of “the publicity generated in the New York/New Jersey area.”
Victor Bono v. Michael Benov, Warden, United States Parole Comm'n, 197 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1999). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to its own regulations, the Commission may designate certain types of cases for "original jurisdiction,” based on criteria set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 (b) (1978). Such cases include life sentences.”
Hearn v. Nelson, 496 F. Supp. 1111 (D. Conn. 1980). · cites it 3× “However, the Regional Commissioners designated petitioner’s case one of “original jurisdiction,” 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 (1979), and referred it to the National Commissioners for decision.”
Wilden v. Fields, 510 F. Supp. 1295 (W.D. Wis. 1981). · cites it 3× “This action was taken pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 (b)(4). Subsequent to consideration of all relevant factors by the National Commissioners, petitioner’s case was continued for a four-year reconsideration hearing in January, 1983.”
Rastelli v. Warden, Metro. Corr. Ctr., 610 F. Supp. 961 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). · cites it 7× “27 (1984), which applies to cases which have been designated as “original jurisdiction” cases under 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 (1984). Petitioner argued, however, that because the Commission would not be able to hear and decide his appeal within sixty days, as required by 18 U.”
Nimrod T. Solomon v. Charles L. Benson, Warden, 563 F.2d 339 (7th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “At the close of that hearing, petitioner was advised that the examiner panel of the United States Board of Parole would recommend that his case be heard as an original jurisdiction matter pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 . 2 As a result, the matter was referred to the Regional…”
Paul J. Cardaropoli v. John J. Norton, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Danbury, Connecticut, 523 F.2d 990 (2d Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.17 (a), (b)(2) (1974). All original jurisdiction cases are eventually submitted for en banc consideration of the five Regional Directors.”
Rastelli v. Warden, 782 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1986). · cites it 4× “Rastelli’s case was designated for original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.17 (b) and, accordingly, was governed by the special rules applicable to such cases.”
Brett C. Kimberlin v. O.I. White & United States Parole Comm'n, 7 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “17 provides that a Regional Commissioner may designate certain cases as original jurisdiction cases, including those involving sentences over 45 years and those involving "national or unusual attention because of the nature of the crime, arrest, trial, or prisoner status.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.17(a) — 1 case
Biancone v. Norton, 421 F. Supp. 1043 (D. Conn. 1976).
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.17(b)(3) — 1 case
United States ex rel. Addonizio v. Arnold, 423 F. Supp. 189 (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.