28 C.F.R. § 2.18
Granting of parole
The granting of parole to an eligible prisoner rests in the discretion of the U.S. Parole Commission. As prerequisites to a grant of parole, the Commission must determine that the prisoner has substantially observed the rules of the institution or institutions in which he has been confined; and upon consideration of the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the prisoner, must determine that release would not depreciate the seriousness of his offense or promote disrespect for the law, and that release would not jeopardize the public welfare (i.e., that there is a reasonable probability that, if released, the prisoner would live and remain at liberty without violating the law or the conditions of his parole).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).
Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992). “2027 ; see also 28 CFR § 2.18 (1991). This requirement reflected "the incapacitative aspect of the use of imprisonment which has the effect of denying the opportunity for future criminality, at least for a time.”
Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2008). “1 at 3-4 with 28 C.F.R. § 2.18 and 28 C.F.R § 2.73(b). It is readily apparent (in fact, defendants do not appear to contest) that offense accountability was considered in plaintiffs’ cases.”
William J. Prater v. U.S. Parole Comm'n & Thomas Keohane, Warden, 802 F.2d 948 (7th Cir. 1986). “This weird possibility is in any event foreclosed by another provision of the guidelines — “The [Commission] may parole a prisoner who is otherwise eligible if (a) in the opinion of the Board such release is not incompatible with the welfare of society,” 28 C.F.R. § 2.18 (1974)…”
Erasmo Gambino v. E.W. Morris (Warden-Fci Fairton) United States Parole Comm'r, 134 F.3d 156 (3rd Cir. 1998). “See also 28 C.F.R. § 2.18 (“The granting of parole to an eligible prisoner rests in the discretion of the United States Parole Commission.”
Donald Wayne Green v. Robert Christiansen, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Lompoc, California, 732 F.2d 1397 (9th Cir. 1984). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.18 (1983). If, in fact, Green’s request for sentence credit was a parole matter we would agree.”
Hearn v. Nelson, 496 F. Supp. 1111 (D. Conn. 1980). “§§ 4206 , 4207; 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.18 , 2.19. 7 It must also provide a prisoner with *1115 an adequate statement of the reasons for its decision, including reference to the evidence and sources relied upon, if it denies parole.”
Furnari v. United States Parole Comm'n, 531 F.3d 241 (3rd Cir. 2008). “Was the District Court correct in holding that the Parole Commission did not violate the Sentencing Reform Act, 18 U.”
Herbert J. O'Brien v. L. R. Putnam, 591 F.2d 53 (9th Cir. 1979). “Consideration of the Severity of the Offense Contrary to O’Brien’s assertion, the Parole Commission’s regulations expressly provide that the Commission may consider the offense for which a prisoner was convicted in exercising its discretion in parole decisions.”
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). “1976); see also 28 C.F.R. § 2.18 (“The granting of parole to an eligible prisoner rests in the discretion of the United States Parole Commission.”
Charles Musto v. United States, 571 F.2d 136 (3rd Cir. 1978). “18 of the Guidelines ( 28 C.F.R. § 2.18 ). Compare 18 U.S. C.A. § 4206 (West Supp.”
Edward Moore v. W. Raymond Nelson, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Danbury, Connecticut, 611 F.2d 434 (2d Cir. 1979). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.18 (March 5, 1979). It is true that among the information about a prisoner that the Commission has bound itself to consider are “reports and recommendations which the staff of the facility in which the prisoner is confined may make.”
William J. Prater v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, & Thomas Keohane, Warden, 764 F.2d 1230 (7th Cir. 1985). “Prior to the passage of this statute, 28 C.F.R. § 2.18 , "Granting of Parole,” had read as follows: The granting of parole rests in the discretion of the Board of Parole.”
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.