C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 2—PAROLE, RELEASE, SUPERVISION AND RECOMMITMENT OF PRISONERS, YOUTH OFFENDERS, AND JUVENILE DELINQUENTS › Subpart A—United States Code Prisoners and Parolees

28 C.F.R. § 2.23

Delegation to hearing examiners

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

(a) There is hereby delegated to hearing examiners the authority necessary to conduct hearings and make recommendations relative to the grant or denial of parole or reparole, revocation or reinstatement of parole or mandatory release, and conditions of parole. Any hearing may be conducted by a single examiner or by a panel of examiners. Notwithstanding the provisions of §§ 2.48 through 2.51, §§ 2.101 through 2.104 and §§ 2.214 through 2.217, there is also delegated to hearing examiners the authority necessary to make a probable cause finding, to determine the location of a revocation hearing, and to determine the witnesses who will attend the hearing, including the authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses and evidence.

(b) The concurrence of two examiners shall be required to obtain a panel recommendation to the Regional Commissioner. A panel recommendation is required in each case decided by a Regional Commissioner after the holding of a hearing.

(c) An examiner panel recommendation exists of two concurring examiner votes. In the event of divergent votes, the case shall be referred to another hearing examiner for another vote. If concurring votes do not result from such a referral, the case shall be referred to any available hearing examiner until a panel recommendation is obtained.

[84 FR 43690, Aug. 22, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2024 · leading case: Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 3× “28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (a). Typically, a single Hearing Examiner conducts the hearing and makes a recommendation, which is then reviewed by a second examiner, and a third, if necessary.”
Carmel v. Thomas, 510 F. Supp. 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 4× “Upon review in the Regional Office pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (c), 4 the Administrative Hearing Examiner reviewed the foregoing and voted to revoke Carmel’s parole, to give Carmel credit for time under supervision from the date of his release until July 6, 1973, and to…”
Allston v. Gaines, 158 F. Supp. 2d 76 (D.D.C. 2001). · cites it 2× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (a). Examiner Shoquist disagreed with Examiner Clay’s conclusion and found that petitioner had committed an act of simple assault upon Ms.”
Blue Thunder v. United States Parole Comm'n, 133 F. Supp. 3d 5 (D.D.C. 2015). · cites it 4× “He contends that the Commission exceeded the scope of its rule-making authority when it promulgated a regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 2.23 , and its corresponding internal Rule 2.”
Willis E. Campbell v. United States Parole Comm'n & Joseph S. Petrovsky. Appeal of United States Parole Comm'n, 704 F.2d 106 (3rd Cir. 1983). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (c) (1982). The Notice of Action informed Campbell of the Commission’s decision to continue him in prison until expiration of his term.”
Charles Layton Cox v. Charles L. Benson & Maurice Seigler, 548 F.2d 186 (7th Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (b) requires the regional Administrative Hearing Examiner to cast a deciding vote in the case of a split decision by the hearing examining panel.”
Toolasprashad v. Grondolsky, 570 F. Supp. 2d 610 (D.N.J. 2008). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (a) (emphasis supplied).”
Vincent Lynch v. United States Parole Comm'n & Michael Quinlan, Warden, Respondents, 768 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1985). “§ 4203 (c)(2) (1982); 28 C.F.R. § 2.23 , 2.24 (1984). The Commission in its Notice of Action stated that Lynch was to be continued to another hearing in 1991 because his earlier release “would depreciate the seriousness of [his] offense,” and would not adequately account for his…”
Victor Bono v. Michael Benov, Warden, United States Parole Comm'n, 197 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1999). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (1978). Whereas appeals from original jurisdiction cases are handled by the full Commission, appeals from non-original jurisdiction cases are handled by the National Appeals Board.”
Rastelli v. Warden, 782 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “Cases not designated for original jurisdiction are heard by a panel of two hearing examiners, who make a recommendation, 28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (a); this panel recommendation becomes effective upon approval by the Regional Commissioner.”
Philip Weinstein v. United States Parole Comm'n, Harvey Cox, Warden, 902 F.2d 1451 (9th Cir. 1990). “28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (d). Prisoners may then file an appeal with the National Appeals Board of the U.”
Bowman v. United States Bd. of Parole, 411 F. Supp. 329 (W.D. Wis. 1976). “In keeping with 28 C.F.R. § 2.23 (b) (1975), the regional Administrative Hearing Examiner was called upon to cast the deciding vote.”
Show all 32 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.23(b) — 1 case
Shahid v. Crawford, 430 F. Supp. 126 (M.D. Ala. 1977).
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.23(d) — 1 case
Flores v. Stock, 715 F. Supp. 1468 (C.D. Cal. 1989).
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.