28 C.F.R. § 2.19

Information considered

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

(a) In making a parole or reparole determination the Commission shall consider, if available and relevant:

(1) Reports and recommendations which the staff of the facility in which such prisoner is confined may make;

(2) Official reports of the prisoner's prior criminal record, including a report or record of earlier probation and parole experiences;

(3) Pre-sentence investigation reports;

(4) Recommendations regarding the prisoner's parole made at the time of sentencing by the sentencing judge and prosecuting attorney;

(5) Reports of physical, mental, or psychiatric examination of the offender; and

(6) A statement, which may be presented orally or otherwise, by any victim of the offense for which the prisoner is imprisoned about the financial, social, psychological, and emotional harm done to, or loss suffered by such victim.

(b)(1) There shall also be taken into consideration such additional relevant information concerning the prisoner (including information submitted by the prisoner) as may be reasonably available (18 U.S.C. 4207). The Commission encourages the submission of relevant information concerning an eligible prisoner by interested persons.

(2) To permit adequate review of information concerning the prisoner, materials submitted to the Commission should be received by the Commission no later than the first day of the month preceding the month of the scheduled hearing docket.

(3) If material of more than six (6), double-spaced, letter-sized pages is first submitted at the time of the hearing (or preliminary interview) and the hearing panel (or person conducting the hearing or preliminary interview) concludes that it is not feasible to read all the material at that time, the person submitting the material will be permitted to summarize it briefly at the hearing (or preliminary interview). All of the material submitted will become part of the record to be considered by the Commission in its review of the proceedings.

(4) The Commission will normally consider only verbal and written evidence at hearings. Recorded audio and visual material will be reviewed at hearings only if there is no adequate substitute to permit a finding under paragraph (c) of this section. Otherwise, recorded audio and visual material should be submitted prior to the hearing for review and summarization, pursuant to paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

(c) The Commission may take into account any substantial information available to it in establishing the prisoner's offense severity rating, salient factor score, and any aggravating or mitigating circumstances, provided the prisoner is apprised of the information and afforded an opportunity to respond. If the prisoner disputes the accuracy of the information presented, the Commission shall resolve such dispute by the preponderance of the evidence standard; that is, the Commission shall rely upon such information only to the extent that it represents the explanation of the facts that best accords with reason and probability. If the Commission is given evidence of criminal behavior that has been the subject of an acquittal in a federal, state, or local court, the Commission may consider that evidence if:

(1) The Commission finds that it cannot adequately determine the prisoner's suitability for release on parole, or to remain on parole, unless the evidence is taken into account;

(2) The Commission is satisfied that the record before it is adequate notwithstanding the acquittal;

(3) The prisoner has been given the opportunity to respond to the evidence before the Commission; and

(4) The evidence before the Commission meets the preponderance standard.

In any other case, the Commission shall defer to the trial jury. Offense behavior in Category 5 or above shall presumptively support a finding under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

(d) Recommendations and information from sentencing judges, defense attorneys, prosecutors, and other interested parties are welcomed by the Commission. In evaluating a recommendation concerning parole, the Commission must consider the degree to which such recommendation provides the Commission with specific facts and reasoning relevant to the statutory criteria for parole (18 U.S.C. 4206) and the application of the Commission's guidelines (including reasons for departure therefrom). Thus, to be most helpful, a recommendation should state its underlying factual basis and reasoning. However, no recommendation (including a prosecutorial recommendation pursuant to a plea agreement) may be considered as binding upon the Commission's discretionary authority to grant or deny parole.

[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 26550, May 4, 1979; 44 FR 27658, May 11, 1979; 44 FR 31638, June 1, 1979; 49 FR 34207, Aug. 29, 1984; 49 FR 44098, Nov. 2, 1984; 50 FR 36423, Sept. 6, 1985; 51 FR 7064, Feb. 28, 1986; 56 FR 16270, Apr. 22, 1991; 56 FR 30868, July 8, 1991; 58 FR 16612, Mar. 30, 1993]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 165 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1974–2024 · leading case: Erasmo Gambino v. E.W. Morris (Warden-Fci Fairton) United States Parole Comm'r, 134 F.3d 156 (3rd Cir. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Erasmo Gambino v. E.W. Morris (Warden-Fci Fairton) United States Parole Comm'r, 134 F.3d 156 (3rd Cir. 1998). · cites it 8× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (c). On appeal, Gambino argues that: (1) none of the information relied upon by the Commission is rationally connected to the Commission’s finding that he was a member of an organized crime family, and (2) there was not “good cause” to place his sentence…”

Dufur v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 314 F. Supp. 3d 10 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 7× “, 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (a) ("[T]he Commission shall consider, if .”

Hackett v. United States Parole Comm'n, 851 F.2d 127 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 4× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (a)(3) (1986). 4 The regulations also require that the prisoner be apprised of the information and given an opportunity to respond.”

Jerry Kenneth Stroud v. United States Parole Comm'n, 668 F.2d 843 (5th Cir. 1982). · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (c). The Commission considered Stroud’s contention that he should have received one additional point for verified employment and one point for no parole or probation revocation.”

Gary Robert Williams v. United States Parole Comm'n, 707 F.2d 1060 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 5× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (b), (c), (d). 2. Parole comment form.”

Milford Eugene Slader v. Percy H. Pitzer, 1, 107 F.3d 1243 (7th Cir. 1997). · cites it 6× “§§ 4206-4207 and 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 . Slader also argues that the Parole Commission failed to resolve his dispute with the facts, as required by 28 C.”

Arias, Rene v. The United States Parole Comm'n Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pa., 648 F.2d 196 (3rd Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “Appellant claims that the background material accompanying the Commission’s 1979 amendment of 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 evinces a desire to limit the Board’s inquiry to the “actual criminal transaction underlying the conviction.”

United States v. Stephen Larned Engs, 884 F.2d 894 (5th Cir. 1989). · cites it 3× “Recognizing *896 the crucial role that a PSI report plays in the treatment of a criminal defendant, Congress has enacted several amendments to Rule 32 in recent years to help ensure the accuracy of these reports. Under the 1983 amendments to Rule 32, a defendant and his attorney…”

United States v. Rosenberg, 108 F. Supp. 2d 191 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). · cites it 8× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (d) (1999). Interestingly, regarding the place of incarceration, and referring to Family member Marilyn Buck’s escape from prison, Judge Lacey warned, “it will be remembered that Rosenberg’s ‘comrade’, Marilyn Buck, was permitted to walk out of Alder-son on…”

Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 3× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (c) (1986). Roberts misunderstands this standard.”

United States v. Sada Vargas, A/K/A Zaida Hernandez, 615 F.2d 952 (2d Cir. 1980). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (c) (1979), and an unreviewed conviction might well be considered more probative of the underlying facts than one that has been set aside.”

William J. Walker v. United States, 816 F.2d 1313 (9th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.19 (c). This standard does not, as Walker implies, apply to each item of information, but instead to the evidence taken as a whole.”

Show all 165 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.19(a) — 1 case

Lee v. United States Parole Comm'n, 614 F. Supp. 634 (S.D.N.Y. 1985).

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.19(b)(1) — 2 cases

United States v. David Friedland, David J. Friedland, in No. 95-5582. David Friedland v. Douglas Lansing, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Ft. Dix, Nj United States Parole Comm'n David J. Friedland, in No. 95-5583. David Friedland v. United States of Am., David J. Friedland, In, 83 F.3d 1531 (3rd Cir. 1996).

United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531 (3rd Cir. 1996).

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.19(c) — 10 cases

Hodges v. O'BRIEN, 589 F. Supp. 1225 (D. Kan. 1984).

Bobby E. Maynard v. Al Havenstrite, 727 F.2d 439 (5th Cir. 1984).

Ostrer v. Luther, 615 F. Supp. 1568 (D. Conn. 1985).

Castaldo v. United States Parole Comm'n, 554 F. Supp. 985 (D. Colo. 1983).

Greene v. United States Parole Comm'n, 749 F. Supp. 650 (M.D. Penn. 1990).

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.