28 C.F.R. § 2.21

Reparole consideration guidelines

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

(a)(1) If revocation is based upon administrative violation(s) only, grade the behavior as if a Category One offense under § 2.20.

(2) If a finding is made that the prisoner has engaged in behavior constituting new criminal conduct, the appropriate severity rating for the new criminal behavior shall be calculated. New criminal conduct may be determined either by a new federal, state, or local conviction or by an independent finding by the Commission at revocation hearing. As violations may be for state or local offenses, the appropriate severity level may be determined by analogy with listed federal offense behaviors.

(b) The guidelines for parole consideration specified at 28 CFR 2.20 shall then be applied with the salient factor score recalculated. The conviction and commitment from which the offender was released shall be counted as a prior conviction and commitment.

(c) Time served on a new state or federal sentence shall be counted as time in custody for reparole guideline purposes. This does not affect the computation of the expiration date of the violator term as provided by §§ 2.47(e) and 2.52 (c) and (d).

(d) The above are merely guidelines. A decision outside these guidelines (either above or below) may be made when circumstances warrant.

[50 FR 40368, Oct. 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 41529, July 14, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 58 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976). · cites it 2× “); 28 CFR §§ 2.21 , 2.52 (c) (2) (1976). Thus, deferral of the revocation decision does not deprive petitioner of any such opportunity; *88 nothing in the statute or regulations gives him any "right" to force the decision of the Commission at this time.”

Martin B. Steinberg v. Police Court of Albany, New York, 610 F.2d 449 (6th Cir. 1979). · cites it 5× “Applying re-parole guidelines, 28 C.F.R. § 2.21 , the Commission revoked Steinberg’s parole and specified that he must serve 24 to 32 months before becoming eligible for re-parole.”

Robert Bialkin v. Benjamin F. Baer, 719 F.2d 590 (2d Cir. 1983). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 2.21 (b)(1) (1982). Because violations of parole may be based on non-federal offenses, the regulations permit the appropriate severity level to “be determined by analogy with listed federal offense behaviors”.”

Lyman T. Shepard v. Larry Taylor, Warden, Metro. Corr. Ctr., & Maurice Sigler, Chairman, United States Parole Comm'n, 556 F.2d 648 (2d Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “The panel also determined, however, to reinstate Shepard’s parole in two months (March 15), a date far below the minimum term of reincarceration suggested by the Parole Commission’s recently promulgated “reparole guidelines,” 28 C.F.R. § 2.21 , 41 Fed. Reg. 37324 -25 (Sept.”

Charles R. Warren v. United States Parole Comm'n, 659 F.2d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1981). · cites it 2× “Project, Parole Release Decisionmaking and the Sentencing Process, 84 Yale L.J. 810 , 822 (1975). . 18 U.S.”

Fletcher, Thaddeus v. Reilly, Edward, 433 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “20 (1999) (federal parole framework incorporated into reparole analysis by 28 C.F.R. § 2.21 ). The interim regulations went into effect on August 5, 1998.”

Marion Calvin Tucker v. Peter Carlson, Warden, 925 F.2d 330 (9th Cir. 1991). “1984) (per curiam) (emphasis in original); see 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.21 (b)(3), 2.47(d)(1). The record demonstrates that the Commission acted in compliance with the regulations.”

Robert Frederick Taylor v. United States Parole Comm'n, 734 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1984). “It is also undisputed that the Parole Commission’s finding of new criminal conduct was based entirely upon Probation Officer Hall’s letter.”

Frank Grasso, Appellee-Petitioner v. John J. Norton, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Danbury, Connecticut, Appellants-Respondents, 520 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.21 provided, at the time, that special review of parole eligibility would be granted at any time “any new information of substantial significance” was received by the Board.”

Portley v. Grossman, Warden, Et Al., 444 U.S. 1311 (1980). “The Commission applied its guidelines currently in force, 28 CFR § 2.21 (1978), in establishing applicant’s next presumptive parole date, indicating that a customary range of 34 to 44 months would be served before re-release.”

Fletcher v. United States Parole Comm'n, 550 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2008). “Board reparole regulations, the federal reparole guidelines, published at 28 C.F.R. § 2.21 , consider only the offense and offender characteristics, excluding rehabilitative progress or positive post-incarceration conduct from the resulting “salient factor score.”

Frederick E. Hopper v. United States Parole Comm'n, 702 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1983). “At such a hearing, the USPC may decide that the time Hopper spent in pretrial custody should be credited to his federal sentence. The USPC also has the power to allow, retroactively, the federal sentence to run concurrently with Hopper’s state sentence.”

Show all 58 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.21(c) — 1 case

Ernest G. Moore v. W.A. Perrill, Warden United States Parole Comm'n, 39 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 1994).

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.