28 C.F.R. § 2.47

Warrant placed as a detainer and dispositional review

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

(a) When a parolee is serving a new sentence in a federal, state or local institution, a parole violation warrant may be placed against him as a detainer.

(1) If the prisoner is serving a new sentence in a federal institution, a revocation hearing shall be scheduled within 120 days of notification of placement of the detainer, or as soon thereafter as practicable, provided the prisoner is eligible for and has applied for an initial hearing on the new sentence, or is serving a new sentence of one year or less. In any other case, the detainer shall be reviewed on the record pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section.

(2) If the prisoner is serving a new sentence in a state or local institution, the violation warrant shall be reviewed by the Regional Commissioner not later than 180 days following notification to the Commission of such placement. The parolee shall receive notice of the pending review, and shall be permitted to submit a written application containing information relative to the disposition of the warrant. He shall also be notified of his right to request counsel under the provisions of § 2.48(b) to assist him in completing this written application.

(b) If the prisoner is serving a new federal sentence, the Regional Commissioner, following a dispositional record review, may:

(1) Pursuant to the general policy of the Commission, let the warrant stand as a detainer and order that the revocation hearing be scheduled to coincide with the initial hearing on the new federal sentence or upon release from the new sentence, whichever comes first;

(2) Withdraw the warrant, and either order reinstatement of the parolee to supervision upon release from confinement or close the case if the expiration date has passed.

(c) If the prisoner is serving a new state or local sentence, the Regional Commissioner, following a dispositional record review may:

(1) Withdraw the detainer and order reinstatement of the parolee to supervision upon release from custody, or close the case if the expiration date has passed.

(2) Order a revocation hearing to be conducted by a hearing examiner or an official designated by the Regional Commissioner at the institution in which the parolee is confined.

(3) Let the detainer stand and order further review at an appropriate time. If the warrant is not withdrawn and no revocation hearing is conducted while the prisoner is in state or local custody, an institutional revocation hearing shall be conducted after the prisoner's return to federal custody.

(d) Revocation hearings pursuant to this section shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions governing institutional revocation hearings, except that a hearing conducted at a state or local facility may be conducted by a hearing examiner, hearing examiner panel, or other official designated by the Regional Commissioner. Following a revocation hearing conducted pursuant to this section, the Commission may take any action specified in § 2.52.

(e)(1) A parole violator whose parole is revoked shall be given credit for all time in federal, state, or local confinement on a new offense for purposes of satisfaction of the reparole guidelines at § 2.20 and § 2.21.

(2) However, it shall be the policy of the Commission that the revoked parolee's original sentence (which due to the new conviction, stopped running upon his last release from federal confinement on parole) again start to run only upon release from the confinement portion of the new sentence or the date of reparole granted pursuant of these rules, whichever comes first. This subsection does not apply to cases where, by law, the running of the original sentence is not interrupted by a new conviction (e.g., YCA; NARA; Mexican or Canadian treaty cases).

(f) If a Regional Commissioner determines that additional information is required in order to make a decision pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, he may schedule a dispositional hearing at the state or local institution where the parolee is confined to obtain such information. Such hearing may be conducted by a hearing examiner, hearing examiner panel, or other official designated by the Regional Commissioner. The parolee shall have notice of such hearing, be allowed to testify in his behalf, and have opportunity for counsel as provided in § 2.48(b).

[52 FR 17400, May 8, 1987, as amended at 61 FR 33657, June 28, 1996]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 60 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1976–2026 · leading case: Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976). · cites it 4× “28 CFR § 2.47 (c) (1976). Petitioner asserts protected liberty interests in both the length and conditions of his confinement.”

United States of Am. Ex Rel. Ciro M. Caruso, N. J. S. P. No. 56349 v. United States Bd. of Parole, 570 F.2d 1150 (3rd Cir. 1978). · cites it 9× “Indeed, if Caruso had been afforded an immediate revocation hearing, he would most likely be in the same position vis a vis his state sentence: he would almost certainly have been sentenced to a consecutive parole violation term, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.47 (c) (1977), and the…”

George Heath v. United States Parole Comm'n & Robert Henderson, Superintendent of Auburn Corr. Facility, 788 F.2d 85 (2d Cir. 1986). · cites it 6× “The Commission notified Heath on September 30, 1982 of the pending dispositional review of the detainer, as required by 28 C.F.R. § 2.47 (a)(2), and informed him on April 1, 1983 that the detainer would remain in effect until a dispositional revocation hearing was scheduled.”

Charles F. Smith v. United States Parole Comm'n U.S. Attorney Gen., 875 F.2d 1361 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 4× “Smith maintains that when he violated his parole in 1980, then-applicable provisions of 28 C.F.R. § 2.47 (1980) would have allowed the unexpired portion of his original federal sentence to begin running concurrently with his state sentence after he had served only 18 months on…”

State Ex Rel. Morris v. Mohn, 267 S.E.2d 443 (W. Va. 1980). · cites it 4× “Consequently, they thought that if the State sentence was ordered to run concurrently with the federal, then wherever the defendant was incarcerated the two sentences would be served concurrently.”

Lyman T. Shepard v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 322 (2d Cir. 1976). · cites it 4× “§ 4214 and 28 C.F.R. § 2.47 have required that a parole violation detainer be reviewed by the Parole Commission (the restructured Board’s new title) within 180 days of its notification of the detainer’s placement and that the parolee be afforded notice of the pending review,…”

Frederick E. Hopper v. United States Parole Comm'n, 702 F.2d 842 (9th Cir. 1983). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.47 (b)(1)(a) (1982). 1 On November 18, 1981, Hopper wrote the Parole Commission, protesting the delay in his parole revocation hearing.”

Elias Castillo Tijerina v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 884 F.2d 861 (5th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “See 28 CFR § 2.47 (e)(2). While the sentencing district court judge may offer recommendations regarding consecutive or concurrent sentencing, the ultimate decision rests with the Parole Commission.”

Rhodes v. U. S. Parole Comm'n, 456 F. Supp. 17 (D. Conn. 1977). · cites it 5× “§ 4214 (b)(2) and 28 C.F.R. § 2.47 (1976). Thus, although the Commission may constitutionally elect to refuse to hold an immediate revocation hearing, the Commission may voluntarily give petitioner a hearing in order that he may preserve his evidence, or even give the prisoner a…”

Frank Malave v. Bill Hedrick, Warden U.S. Parole Comm'n, 271 F.3d 1139 (8th Cir. 2001). “Specifically, he asserted that 28 C.F.R. § 2.47 (a) and (b) limit the Commission’s ability to lodge a warrant as a detainer to instances when a parolee is currently serving a “new federal sentence.”

Ronnie Howard v. Caufield, 765 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “But even if Howard was confused, his confusion was not objectively reasonable in the circumstances of this case.”

Bill C. Poynor v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 878 F.2d 275 (9th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “Poynor also argues that he is entitled to relief because the *276 Parole Commission conducted his parole revocation hearing 32 months after he was taken into state custody on the new charges, rather than within 24 months as required by the Commission’s regulations, 28 C.F.R. §…”

Show all 60 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.47(a)(2) — 1 case

Samuel D. Cromer v. Gary L. Henman, Warden United States Parole Comm'n, 46 F.3d 1150 (10th Cir. 1995).

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.