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. § 2.24

Review of panel recommendation by the Regional Commissioner

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

(a) Upon review of the examiner panel recommendation, the Regional Commissioner may make the decision by concurring with the panel recommendation. If the Regional Commissioner does not concur, the Regional Commissioner shall refer the case to another Commissioner and the decision shall be made on the concurring votes of two Commissioners.

(b) Upon review of the panel recommendation, the Regional Commissioner may also remand the case for a rehearing, with the notice of such action specifying the purpose of the rehearing.

[68 FR 41529, July 14, 2003, as amended by 86 FR 56646, Oct. 12, 2021]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35 cases, 1973–2011 · 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. § 2.24 (b)(2). In Bowers’ case, the third option was implemented, which allows the Regional Commissioner to designate certain cases for the original jurisdiction of the Parole Commission.”
Erasmo Gambino v. E.W. Morris (Warden-Fci Fairton) United States Parole Comm'r, 134 F.3d 156 (3d Cir. 1998). “However, the Regional Commissioner’s May 13, 1994 Notice of Action indicates that the case was referred for further review pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (a). S.A. at 17. Subsection 2.”
Anthony Liberatore v. Bill R. Story, 854 F.2d 830 (6th Cir. 1988). · cites it 4× “2 In a separate memorandum also dated August 12, 1986, Kowalski recommended to Acting Regional Commissioner, Carol Pavi-lak Getty, that she modify the panel’s recommended decision pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (b)(1), and continue petitioner to the expiration of his sentence.”
Harris, Roy v. Martin, Robert L., Supt., Allenwood F.P.C. Harris, Roy v. United States Parole Comm'n, 834 F.2d 361 (3d Cir. 1988). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (1983). Commission regulations provided for a two-tiered administrative appeals process.”
William Grant Goble v. Robert Matthews Warden, Fci, Lexington, Ky. & U.S. Parole Comm'n, 814 F.2d 1104 (6th Cir. 1987). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (b)(2) provides that a Regional Commissioner may, on his own motion, modify a hearing panel recommendation by extending the recommended release date up to six months.”
Vincent Lynch v. United States Parole Comm'n & Michael Quinlan, 768 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1985). “The Regional Commissioner disagreed with the Examiners’ recommendation that Lynch be continued to a presumptive parole date after serving 120 months and, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (a), referred the case to the National Commissioners for additional votes.”
Alan Neal Scott v. John Clark, 761 F.2d 1524 (11th Cir. 1985). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (a) (1980). The decision of the district court must be affirmed for the reasons set out in the magistrate’s report adopted by the district court.”
Thomas M. Roth v. United States Parole Comm'n, 724 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1984). “But an administrative hearing examiner and the Regional Commissioner disagreed with the panel’s recommendation and referred Roth’s case to the National Commissioners under 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (a) (1980). On May 12, 1980, the National Commissioners determined that Roth should serve…”
Mayo v. Sigler, 428 F. Supp. 1343 (N.D. Ga. 1977). · cites it 2× “1 The Regional Commis *1345 sioner rejected these recommendations and instead forwarded the case to the National Board for review pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 . 2 The National Commissioners decided to continue his case for a hearing in August 1977.”
James Paul Grattan v. Maurice H. Sigler, 525 F.2d 329 (9th Cir. 1975). · cites it 2× “The Regional Director of the Board timely referred the decision of the local hearing officers to the National Appellate Board for reconsideration on November 4, 1974, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 , 39 Fed.Reg. 20034 (June 5, 1974).”
United States ex rel. James Schiano 12699-054 v. Dennis Luther, 954 F.2d 910 (3d Cir. 1992). “Because both the Regional Commissioner and the Administrator disagreed with the unanimous recommendation of the Examiners Panel, Schiano’s case was referred to the National Commissioners, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (a). The National Commissioners approved the Category Eight…”
Gary Robert Williams v. United States Parole Comm'n, 707 F.2d 1060 (9th Cir. 1983). “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.24 (a), a Regional Commissioner reviewed the hearing examiners’ conclusion and disagreed with the local decision.”
Show all 35 citing cases →
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.