28 C.F.R. § 2.52

Revocation decisions

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

(a) Whenever a parolee is summoned or retaken by the Commission, and the Commission finds by a preponderance of the evidence, that the parolee has violated a condition of the parole, the Commission may take any of the following actions:

(1) Restore the parolee to supervision including where appropriate:

(i) Reprimand;

(ii) Modification of the parolee's conditions of release;

(iii) Referral to a community corrections center for all or part of the remainder of his original sentence; or

(2) Revoke parole.

(b) If parole is revoked pursuant to this section, the Commission shall also determine, on the basis of the revocation hearing, whether reparole is warranted or whether the prisoner should be continued for further review.

(c) A parolee whose release is revoked by the Commission will receive credit on service of his sentence for time spent under supervision, except as provided below:

(1) If the Commission finds that such parolee intentionally refused or failed to respond to any reasonable request, order, summons or warrant of the Commission or any agent thereof, the Commission may order the forfeiture of the time during which the parolee so refused or failed to respond, and such time shall not be credited to service of the sentence.

(2) It is the Commission's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 4210(b)(2) that, if a parolee has been convicted of a new offense committed subsequent to his release on parole, which is punishable by any term of imprisonment, detention, or incarceration in any penal facility, forfeiture of time from the date of such release to the date of execution of the warrant is an automatic statutory penalty, and such time shall not be credited to the service of the sentence. An actual term of confinement or imprisonment need not have been imposed for such conviction; it suffices that the statute under which the parolee was convicted permits the trial court to impose any term of confinement or imprisonment in any penal facility. If such conviction occurs subsequent to a revocation hearing the Commission may reopen the case and schedule a further hearing relative to time forfeiture and such further disposition as may be appropriate. However, in no event shall the violator term imposed under this subsection, taken together with the time served before release, exceed the total length of the original sentence.

(d)(1) Notwithstanding the above, prisoners committed under the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act or the Youth Corrections Act shall not be subject to any forfeiture provision, but shall serve uninterrupted sentences from the date of conviction, except as provided in § 2.10 (b) and (c).

(2) The commitment of a juvenile offender under the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act may not be extended past the offender's twenty-first birthday unless the juvenile has attained his nineteenth birthday at the time of his commitment, in which case his commitment shall not exceed the lesser of two years or the maximum term which could have been imposed on an adult convicted of the same offense.

(e) In determining whether to revoke parole for non-compliance with a condition of fine, restitution, court costs or assessment, and/or court ordered child support or alimony payment, the Parole Commission shall consider the parolee's employment status, earning ability, financial resources, and any other special circumstances that may have a bearing on the matter. Revocation shall not be ordered unless the parolee is found to be deliberately evading or refusing compliance.

Appendix to § 2.52—General Statement of Policy

In the case of any revocation hearing conducted within the Ninth Circuit, the Commission will exercise discretion in determining whether or not to order forfeiture of all or part of the time spent on parole pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4210(b)(2). The Commission's policy shall be to consider granting credit for time on parole in the case of a parole violator originally classified in the very good risk category (pursuant to 28 CFR 2.20) if the following conditions are met. The conviction must not be for a felony offense. The parole violation behavior (the offense of conviction plus any other violations) must be non-violent, and not involve a repeat of the parole violator's original offense behavior. Further, an adequate period of reimprisonment pursuant to the reparole guidelines at 28 CFR 2.21, and an adequate period of renewed supervision following release from reimprisonment or reinstatement to supervision, must be available without forfeiting street time. In the case of a parole violator originally classified in other than the “very good risk” category, it shall be the Commission's policy to order the forfeiture of all time spent on parole absent extraordinary circumstances. In no instance will the Commission grant credit in the case of a repeat violator on the current sentence.

[42 FR 39809, Aug. 5, 1977, as amended at 44 FR 3408, 3410, Jan. 16, 1979; 50 FR 36422, Sept. 6, 1985; 53 FR 47187, Nov. 22, 1988; 55 FR 42185, Oct. 18, 1990; 68 FR 41530, July 14, 2003]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 106 cases, 1974–2016 · leading case: Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Johnson v. United States, 529 U.S. 694 (2000). · cites it 2× “, 28 CFR § 2.52 (b) *712 (1999) (following revocation of parole, Sentencing Commission will determine whether reparole is warranted); O'Neil, supra, at 299 ; United States Parole Comm'n v.”

Tony Santillanes v. United States Parole Comm'n & Bureau of Prisons, 754 F.2d 887 (10th Cir. 1985). · cites it 4× “28 C.F.R. § 2.52 (1984). Pursuant to its authority under § 2.”

Dietz v. United States Parole Comm'n, 260 F. App'x 763 (6th Cir. 2008). · cites it 5× “The Commission’s regulations regarding revocation decisions are contained in 28 C.F.R. § 2.52 , which provides: (c) A parolee whose release is revoked by the Commission will receive credit on service of his sentence for time spent under supervision, except as provided below: .”

Patrick R. Rizzo v. Sandra B. Armstrong, 921 F.2d 855 (9th Cir. 1990). · cites it 6× “2 He maintains that this regulation impermissibly expands 18 U.”

Lupo v. Norton, 371 F. Supp. 156 (D. Conn. 1974). · cites it 6× “Key ingredients of the new procedure are (a) the use of a table of guidelines as an aid in deciding the appropriate length of time á prisoner should serve before being paroled, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.52 , and (b) a requirement that a prisoner denied parole receive in writing the…”

Ramsey v. United States Parole Comm'n, 840 F.3d 853 (D.C. Cir. 2016). · cites it 3× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.52 (b). Section 2.52(c) sets forth “the Commission’s interpretation of 18 U.”

United States v. Orestes Luciano Abreu, United States of Am. v. James David Thornbrugh, 962 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir. 1992). · cites it 3× “3 Indeed, this court has held that a conviction occurs upon entry of a guilty plea for purposes of 28 C.F.R. § 2.52 (c)(2), which requires the Parole Commission to *1450 order forfeiture of street time if a parolee is “convicted” of a new offense punishable by imprisonment.”

Kevin Fowler v. United States Parole Comm'n, 94 F.3d 835 (3rd Cir. 1996). · cites it 3× “To the extent that the Parole Commission’s regulations at 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.52 (b) and 2.57(c) allow a contrary result, we hold that they are inconsistent with § 841(c).”

George H. Edwards, Jr. v. Stephen Dewalt, 681 F.3d 780 (6th Cir. 2012). · cites it 4× “4 Pursuant to that statute, the Parole Commission promulgated 28 C.F.R. § 2.52 (c)(2), which provides that a parolee forfeits all street time if he is convicted of a new offense punishable by any term of imprisonment.”

Dietz v. Sanders, 100 F. App'x 334 (6th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “On appeal, Petitioner objects to the revocation of time spent on parole (“street time”) on two separate grounds.”

Benjamin Urbina v. Maryellen Thoms, Warden, 270 F.3d 292 (6th Cir. 2001). “§ 4164 and subject to 28 C.F.R. § 2.52 ; and (5) directed petitioner to continue to a presumptive parole after the service of 65 months on the “new” sentence until November 2, 2003, at which time he would be released subject to an INS detainer, or, if the de-tainer was not…”

Renee Decuir v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 800 F.2d 1021 (10th Cir. 1986). · cites it 5× “” See 28 C.F.R. § 2.52 (rules for parole revocation decisions).”

Show all 106 citing cases →

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.52(b) — 2 cases

United States v. Clemmons, 945 F. Supp. 1519 (M.D. Fla. 1996).

Fowler v. US Parole Comm (3rd Cir. 1996).

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.52(c) — 2 cases

Larry Dean Turner v. United States Parole Comm'n Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 39 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1994).

Wright v. Lacy, 664 F. Supp. 1270 (D. Minnesota 1987).

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.52(c)(2) — 3 cases

United States v. Orestes Luciano Abreu, United States of Am. v. James David Thornbrugh, 962 F.2d 1447 (10th Cir. 1992). “3 Indeed, this court has held that a conviction occurs upon entry of a guilty plea for purposes of 28 C.F.R. § 2.52 (c)(2), which requires the Parole Commission to *1450 order forfeiture of street time if a parolee is “convicted” of a new offense punishable by imprisonment.”

Anderberg v. Martin, 679 F. Supp. 1034 (W.D. Okla. 1987).

Larry Dean Turner v. United States Parole Comm'n Attorney Gen. of the United States of Am., 39 F.3d 1193 (10th Cir. 1994).

— 28 C.F.R. § 2.52(e)(2) — 1 case

Gordon v. United States Parole Comm'n, 841 F. Supp. 176 (E.D. Va. 1994).

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.