28 C.F.R. § 2.54
Reviews pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4215(c)
The Attorney General, within thirty days after entry of a Regional Commissioner's decision, may request in writing that the National Appeals Board review such decision. Within sixty days of the receipt of the request the National Appeals Board shall, upon the concurrence of two members, affirm, modify, or reverse the decision, or order a rehearing at the institutional or regional level. The Attorney General and the prisoner affected shall be informed in writing of the decision, and the reasons therefor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1976–1984 · leading case: John Larry Ray v. Patricia Pickett, J. Alan MacDoniel U.S. Parole Comm'r, 734 F.2d 370 (8th Cir. 1984).
John Larry Ray v. Patricia Pickett, J. Alan MacDoniel U.S. Parole Comm'r, 734 F.2d 370 (8th Cir. 1984). “If the interviewing officer finds that there is probable cause for the warrant to issue and a revocation hearing is ordered, the parolee is afforded a revocation hearing before a hearing examiner or examiner panel, at which the parolee may present witnesses and documentary…”
Phillip Bruce Christopher v. U. S. Bd. of Parole, 589 F.2d 924 (7th Cir. 1978). “The Government also argues that a parole grant may be rescinded by the provisions in 28 C.F.R. § 2.54 (1977). This section is not substantive in nature.”
Toomey v. Young, 442 F. Supp. 387 (D. Conn. 1977). “The issue therefore is whether or not the Commission was obligated to execute the warrant sooner than it did.”
Drayton v. McCall, 445 F. Supp. 305 (D. Conn. 1978). “The Government also directs this Court’s attention to 28 C.F.R. § 2.54 (1977), a provision which authorizes the Attorney General or three members of the Commission to request further administrative review of the decision of a Regional Commissioner.”
Williams v. United States, 412 F. Supp. 277 (E.D. Pa. 1976). “Thus, the only question at this point is whether petitioner may seek relief by way of the instant Section 2255 petition or whether the proper remedy lies in a habeas corpus petition filed in the district of his incarceration.”
Furrow v. United States Bd. of Parole, 418 F. Supp. 1309 (D. Me. 1976). “A preliminary hearing, pursuant to 28 CFR § 2.54 , was held on March 23 and probable cause was found to hold petitioner for a full parole revocation hearing, pursuant to 28 CFR § 2.”
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.