28 C.F.R. § 2.29
Release on parole
(a) A grant of parole shall not be deemed to be operative until a certificate of parole has been delivered to the prisoner.
(b) An effective date of parole shall not be set for a date more than nine months from the date of the hearing. Residence in a community corrections center as part of a parole release plan generally shall not exceed one hundred and twenty days.
(c) When an effective date of parole falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, the Warden of the appropriate institution shall be authorized to release the prisoner on the first working day preceding such date.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases, 1975–2009 · leading case: Housler v. Nelson, 453 F. Supp. 874 (D. Conn. 1978).
Housler v. Nelson, 453 F. Supp. 874 (D. Conn. 1978). “Petitioner, an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI), Danbury, seeks by this habeas corpus action an order from this court declaring that his constitutional rights were violated by the Parole Commission when they retarded his parole in accordance with 28 C.F.R. §…”
Durham v. United States Parole Comm'n, 306 F. App'x 225 (6th Cir. 2009). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.29 (a); J.A. at 14 (Pet. at 7) (citing regulation).”
Drayton v. McCall, 584 F.2d 1208 (2d Cir. 1978). “30, 1976) (treating prior regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 2.29 (a) (1974), as applicable only in initial parole grants because (1) a standard of “continued good conduct” in the parole rescission hearing would be meaningless and (2) an irrebuttable presumption that forfeiture of good…”
Richard L. Dye v. United States Parole Comm'n, United States of Am., & United States Attorney Gen., 558 F.2d 1376 (10th Cir. 1977). “6 provide that while a prisoner is not precluded from applying for parole because he has forfeited good time, such forfeiture is an indication that a prisoner has violated the rules of the institution to a serious degree. The record indicates that much of the almost six months’…”
Phillip Bruce Christopher v. U. S. Bd. of Parole, 589 F.2d 924 (7th Cir. 1978). “Specifically, release on the scheduled date is “conditioned upon the continued good conduct by the prisoner and the completion of a satisfactory plan for parole supervision,” 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.29 (c), 2.34(a) (1977), and upon *928 the absence of “new information adverse to the…”
Alfred Crowell v. United States Parole Comm'n, 724 F.2d 1406 (3rd Cir. 1984). “28 C.F.R. § 2.29 (a) (1975). The record establishes that Crowell became statutorily eligible for parole on May 20, 1981, and that at all times from that date until the present he has had outstanding forfeited statutory good-time.”
Ready v. United States Parole Comm'n, 483 F. Supp. 1273 (M.D. Penn. 1980). “Once an effective date of parole is set, parole may be delayed under certain circumstances not here relevant, 28 C.F.R. § 2.29 (c) (1978); 28 C.F.R. § 2.”
Drayton v. McCall, 445 F. Supp. 305 (D. Conn. 1978). “The Government also argues that 28 C.F.R. § 2.29 (a) (1977) lends support to its argument.”
Tippins v. Luther, 869 F. Supp. 331 (W.D. Pa. 1994). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.29 (a). If a prisoner is found in violation of institution rules, the Commission “may reopen the case and retard the parole date for up to 90 days without a hearing, or schedule a rescission under this section on the next available docket at the institution or on…”
Jackson v. Wise, 390 F. Supp. 19 (C.D. Cal. 1975). “As I have said in the body of this memorandum, a Wolff-type hearing conducted by the Bureau of Prisons may conclusively establish a lack of “continued good conduct.”
Kalady v. Booker (10th Cir. 1996). “First, the plain language of 28 C.F.R. § 2.29 (a) (1996) states: "A grant of parole shall not be deemed to be operative until a certificate of parole has been delivered to the prisoner.”
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.