28 C.F.R. § 2.25
Hearings by videoconference
The Commission may conduct a parole determination hearing (including a rescission hearing), a probable cause hearing, an institutional revocation hearing, and a parole termination hearing by videoconference between the hearing examiner and the prisoner or releasee.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 25
cases, 1975–2009 · leading case: Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009).
Terrell v. United States, 564 F.3d 442 (6th Cir. 2009). “The Commission also promulgated rules allowing for videoconferencing, 28 C.F.R. § 2.25 , and eliminated the “in person” requirement for hearings by amending 28 C.”
Luchai Ruviwat v. William French Smith, Attorney Gen. of the U.S. & Robert Christensen, Warden, 701 F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1983). “” Appellant did not appeal pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sections 2.25 and 2.26. A second parole hearing was held in April, 1979.”
Thomas Dewey Lambert v. Warden, U. S. Penitentiary, & the United States Parole Comm'n, 591 F.2d 4 (5th Cir. 1979). “28 C.F.R. §§ 2.25 , 2.26, 1978. The district court agreed and dismissed without prejudice.”
James Edward Bowles v. Paula Tennant, Comm'r, United States Parole Comm'n, United States Bureau of Prisons, 613 F.2d 776 (9th Cir. 1980). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.25 (f) (1976); c1. 28 C.F.R.”
Larry Charles Clonce v. Rex Presley, U. S. Marshal, & the State of Oklahoma, 640 F.2d 271 (10th Cir. 1981). “See 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.25 , 2.26 (1979); Guida v.”
Vincent Lynch v. United States Parole Comm'n & Michael Quinlan, Warden, Respondents, 768 F.2d 491 (2d Cir. 1985). “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.25 , Lynch appealed the decision of the National Commissioners to the Regional Commissioner, who denied the appeal.”
Carmel v. Thomas, 510 F. Supp. 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). “8 See also 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.25 and 2.26. 9 Carmel has pursued neither level of review according to the Commission’s file.”
Whitney Paul Kills Crow v. United States, 555 F.2d 183 (8th Cir. 1977). “28 C.F.R. § 2.25 (1976). An adverse decision by the Regional Commissioner could have been appealed to the National Appeals Board.”
Myrick v. Gunnell, 563 F. Supp. 51 (D. Conn. 1983). “Additionally, since the Regional Commissioner can review the recommendation of the regional hearing examiners under 28 C.F.R. § 2.25 (b), 11 he should be given that opportunity.”
Bowman v. United States Bd. of Parole, 411 F. Supp. 329 (W.D. Wis. 1976). “28 C.F.R. § 2.25 (d)(1) sets forth as a ground upon which a prisoner may appeal the decision of an examiner panel that “[t]he reasons given for a denial or continuance do not support the decision .”
Reynolds v. McCall, 701 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1983). “Reynolds contends, however, that the National Commission’s statement of reasons was inadequate to enable him to make an informed administrative appeal.”
Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493 (10th Cir. 1987). “Should this occur, the plaintiff may then contest the Parole Commission’s decision pursuant to 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.25 and 2.26. This administrative remedy must be utilized before a suit can be brought pursuant to § 2241(c).”
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.25(d) — 1 case
Bryant v. Grinner, 424 F. Supp. 710 (W.D. Wis. 1976).
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.