28 C.F.R. § 2.33

Release plans

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

(a) A grant of parole is conditioned upon the approval of release plans by the Regional Commissioner. In general, the following factors are considered as elements in the prisoner's release plan:

(1) Availability of legitimate employment and an approved residence for the prospective parolee; and

(2) Availability of necessary aftercare for a parolee who is ill or who requires special care.

(b) Generally, parolees will be released only to the place of their legal residence unless the Commission is satisfied that another place of residence will serve the public interest more effectively or will improve the probability of the applicant's readjustment.

(c) Where the circumstances warrant, the Commission on its own motion, or upon recommendation of the probation officer, may require that an advisor who is a responsible, reputable, and law-abiding citizen living in or near the community in which the releasee will reside be available to the releasee. Such advisor shall serve under the direction of and in cooperation with the probation officer to whom the parolee is assigned.

(d) When the prisoner has an unsatisfied fine or restitution order, a reasonable plan for payment [or performance of services, if so ordered by the court] shall, where feasible, be included in the parole release plan.

[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977; 42 FR 44234, Sept. 2, 1977, as amended at 50 FR 36422, Sept. 6, 1985; 68 FR 41530, July 14, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1966–2010 · leading case: United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Comstock, 560 U.S. 126 (2010). · cites it 2× “15; see also 28 CFR §2.33 (b) (2009), and neither the Court nor the concurrences argue that a State has the power to refuse such a person domi cile within its borders.”

Alexander v. United States Parole Comm'n, 514 F.3d 1083 (10th Cir. 2008). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.33 ; Kirk v. White, 627 F.Supp.”

Philip J. Alonzo v. John J. Rozanski, Iii, United States Prob. Officer, Respondents, 808 F.2d 637 (7th Cir. 1986). · cites it 2× “As 28 C.F.R. § 2.33 (b) provides, he was paroled to the place of his legal residence and required to obtain the permission of the probation service before leaving the *638 Northern District of Illinois.”

Housler v. Nelson, 453 F. Supp. 874 (D. Conn. 1978). · cites it 3× “A grant of parole is conditioned upon the approval of release plans by the Regional Commissioner, 28 C.F.R. § 2.33 (1977). See also Paulas v.”

Hughes Anderson Bagley v. J.J. Harvey, U.S. Marshal, & Audrey Kaslow, U.S. Parole Comm'n, 718 F.2d 921 (9th Cir. 1983). “That regulation reads: Generally, parolees will be released only to the place of their legal residence unless the Commission is satisfied that another place of residence will serve the public interest more effectively or will improve the probability of the applicant’s…”

Paul Edward Maples v. United States, 360 F.2d 155 (8th Cir. 1966). “This course was taken on the basis of 28 CFR § 2.33 , which had been promulgated by the Board under the authority of 18 U.”

Kirk v. White, 627 F. Supp. 423 (E.D. Va. 1986). “Respondent also points to language in the Parole Commission’s regulations stating that: “A grant of parole is conditioned upon the approval of release plans by the Regional Commissioner.”

Am. Samoa Gov't v. Falefatu, 17 Am. Samoa 2d 114 (1990). “28 C.F.R. § 2.33 (b) (a parolee should be released to the place of his residence "unless .”

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.