28 C.F.R. § 2.27
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases, 1976–2014 · leading case: Smaldone v. United States, 458 F. Supp. 1000 (D. Kan. 1978).
Smaldone v. United States, 458 F. Supp. 1000 (D. Kan. 1978). “Smaldone appealed this decision to the Commission as a whole as permitted under 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 . He was notified on October 21, 1977, that the previous decision was modified to a statutory review hearing in April, 1978, to reflect that his continuance was limited by the new…”
Erasmo Gambino v. E.W. Morris (Warden-Fci Fairton) United States Parole Comm'r, 134 F.3d 156 (3rd Cir. 1998). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 (b). . "If the prisoner disputes the accuracy of the information presented, the Commission shall resolve such dispute by the preponderance of the evidence standard.”
Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 (a). During Bowers’ parole proceedings, the Parole Commission also utilized a regulation permitting the reopening of a case.”
Rastelli v. Warden, Metro. Corr. Ctr., 610 F. Supp. 961 (S.D.N.Y. 1985). “At the time of that motion, petitioner had an appeal pending to the full Commission pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 (1984), which applies to cases which have been designated as “original jurisdiction” cases under 28 C.”
Ramesh Solomon v. Robert I. Elsea, Warden, 676 F.2d 282 (7th Cir. 1982). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 (d). The Solomons then sought judicial review of their parole determinations in district court.”
Victor Bono v. Michael Benov, Warden, United States Parole Comm'n, 197 F.3d 409 (9th Cir. 1999). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 (1991). The district court agreed and granted Bono’s second habeas petition, ruling that the Commission had violated 28 C.”
Rastelli v. Warden, 782 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1986). “, that invalidated 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 (a), a Commission regulation governing the time allowed for processing parole appeals in “original jurisdiction” cases.”
Veronza L. Bowers, Jr. v. United States Parole Comm'n, Warden, 760 F.3d 1177 (11th Cir. 2014). “28 (f) and again on June 14, 2005, under 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 . Bowers contended, inter alia, that (1) Commissioner Spagnoli’s actions were improper and (2) the Parole Commission’s October 2005 reconsideration of Bowers’s parole was affected by political pressure from the Attorney…”
Auckland Holmes v. United States Bd. of Parole & United States Bureau of Prisons, 541 F.2d 1243 (7th Cir. 1976). “Holmes appealed this decision within the agency pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 , but his appeal was denied in May 1975.”
Nimrod T. Solomon v. Charles L. Benson, Warden, 563 F.2d 339 (7th Cir. 1977). “Petitioner appealed this determination to the United States Parol Commission pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 . The Commission affirmed the denial of parole on April 14, 1975.”
Yahweh v. United States Parole Comm'n, 158 F. Supp. 2d 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2001). “Under this analysis, the first matter of inquiry is whether, in enacting 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 , which provides for administrative appeal of “original jurisdiction” parole cases, Congress clearly intended to require parolees to exhaust this right of appeal before challenging their…”
Robert E. Merki v. John Sullivan, Warden, Fci, Sandstone, & United States Parole Comm'n, 853 F.2d 599 (8th Cir. 1988). “” This decision was appealable to the National Parole Commission, 28 C.F.R. § 2.27 , and appellant was so notified.”
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.