28 C.F.R. § 2.5
Sentence aggregation
When multiple sentences are aggregated by the Bureau of Prisons pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4161 and 4205, such sentences are treated as a single aggregate sentence for the purpose of every action taken by the Commission pursuant to these rules, and the prisoner has a single parole eligibility date as determined by the Bureau of Prisons.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1981–2024 · leading case: Lueth v. Beach, 498 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2007).
Lueth v. Beach, 498 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2007). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 ; see also BOP Sentence Computation Manual, ch.”
Wilton Chatman-Bey v. Edwin Meese, Iii, Attorney Gen. of the United States, 797 F.2d 987 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “Parole Commission, 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 (1985) (emphasis added). 6 To arrive at the parole eligibility date on a 60-year term, FBP would turn to 18 U.”
Jerry Wayne Watts v. John T. Hadden, Warden, 651 F.2d 1354 (10th Cir. 1981). “28 CFR § 2.5 (1980). Under § 5017(b) the Commission may discharge a committed youth offender unconditionally at the expiration of one year from the date of conditional release.”
Edward Ford, Jr. v. Charles Massarone, 902 F.3d 309 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “parole hearing is tied to one of two dates, whichever comes later: (i) the projected parole date for the federal sentence, as described above; or (ii) the so-called "single parole eligibility date," see 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 -a date that takes into account the parole eligibility date…”
United States v. Bobby Ray West, 826 F.2d 909 (9th Cir. 1987). “Order of Sentences West challenges the sequence in which the district court imposed his sentences. He argues that he should serve the sentences with no parole eligibility before those which provide for parole.”
Brett C. Kimberlin v. O.I. White & United States Parole Comm'n, 7 F.3d 527 (6th Cir. 1993). “1 Kimberlin’s sentences were aggregated by the Bureau of Prisons and, pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 , were treated by the Commission as a single aggregate sentence of fifty-one years, six months, and nineteen days.”
United States v. George A. Garcia, 903 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1990). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 (1989); see also 18 U.S.C.”
Boone v. Menifee, 387 F. Supp. 2d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 (emphasis added). Thus, when a prisoner is serving “any combination of U.”
Crutchfield v. United States Parole Comm'n, 438 F. Supp. 2d 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 ; 3 see also Goode v. Markley, 603 F.”
Andreozzi v. Warden (S.D. Ill. 2023). “Now, Petitioner raises several detailed grounds for relief under § 2241, including: (1) the Commission erred by ordering Petitioner’s parole considerations continued to a 15-year reconsideration hearing based on sentence aggregation under 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 ; 2Section 2.28(f)…”
Andreozzi v. Warden (S.D. Ill. 2023). “Petitioner raises several detailed grounds for relief under § 2241, including: (1) the United States Parole Commission (“Commission”) erred by ordering Petitioner’s parole considerations continued to a 15-year reconsideration hearing based on sentence aggregation under 28 C.F.R.…”
Bonnie v. Dunbar (D.S.C. 2024). “While the Parole Commission has long aggregated sentences for the purposes of calculating “good time” and to set a parole eligibility date, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.5 , that aggregation does not deprive the sentences of their distinct parole implications: the aggregation of a parolable…”
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.