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. § 2.31

Parole to detainers: Statement of policy

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

(a) Where a detainer is lodged against a prisoner, the Commission may grant parole if the prisoner in other respects meets the criteria set forth in § 2.18. The presence of a detainer is not in itself a valid reason for the denial of parole.

(b) The Commission will cooperate in working out arrangements for concurrent supervision with other jurisdictions where it is feasible and where release on parole appears to be justified.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1970–1983 · leading case: Norma J. Goode v. Carson Markley, Warden, 603 F.2d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Norma J. Goode v. Carson Markley, Warden, 603 F.2d 973 (D.C. Cir. 1979). · cites it 2× “On this reasoning, she asserts first that her consecutive sentences cannot be aggregated for the purpose of determining parole eligibility, and second that the armed robbery sentence imposed by the Superior Court is tantamount to a detainer lodged by a state against a federal…”
Ray Earnest v. R. I. Moseley, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, 426 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 1970). · cites it 2× “In that case we held that where the parolee or releasee did not contest the operative facts of his violation, the failure to appoint counsel to represent him at the revocation hearing is not violative of due process.”
Anthony J. Garafola v. G.C. Wilkinson, Warden. G.C. Wilkinson, 721 F.2d 420 (3rd Cir. 1983). “28 C.F.R. § 2.31 (a) (1982). Second, the regulations provide for two types of parole where a detainer is outstanding: parole to the detaining authority with the proviso that the prisoner be returned to the Federal authorities once the detainer is withdrawn; and parole to the…”
Baker v. Day, 436 F. Supp. 593 (W.D. Okla. 1977). “In doing so it would be necessary for the court to assume, first, that the Commission did not accept the petitioner’s statement to the panel that the detainers had been withdrawn; second, that the panel violated the Commission’s regulation 28 C.F.R. § 2.31 (a) forbidding the…”
Garafola v. Wilkinson, 555 F. Supp. 1002 (M.D. Penn. 1983). “28 C.F.R. § 2.31 . Furthermore, clearly, the same rules applicable to ordinary parole cannot apply to “parole” to a detainer.”
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.