28 C.F.R. § 2.6
Withheld and forfeited good time
While neither a forfeiture of good time nor a withholding of good time shall bar a prisoner from receiving a parole hearing, section 4206 of title 18 of the U.S. Code permits the Commission to parole only those prisoners who have substantially observed the rules of the institution.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases, 1953–2000 · leading case: Richard L. Dye v. United States Parole Comm'n, United States of Am., & United States Attorney Gen., 558 F.2d 1376 (10th Cir. 1977).
Richard L. Dye v. United States Parole Comm'n, United States of Am., & United States Attorney Gen., 558 F.2d 1376 (10th Cir. 1977). “The record indicates that much of the almost six months’ good time forfeited by appellant was for substan *1379 tial infractions, perhaps the most serious of which was appellant’s attempt to direct his release through use of fraudulent documents purporting to have been issued by…”
Alfred Crowell v. United States Parole Comm'n, 724 F.2d 1406 (3rd Cir. 1984). “28 C.F.R. § 2.6 (1979). Plainly then, application of the 1979 regulations was more advantageous to Crowell than application of the 1975 regulations would have been, as evidenced by the fact that the Commission has set a presumptive parole-release date for Crowell.”
Drayton v. McCall, 584 F.2d 1208 (2d Cir. 1978). “As the proposed rule to eliminate 28 C.F.R. § 2.6 (b) indicates, note 6 supra, disciplinary actions may vary from institution to institution and sometimes may not reflect behavior serious enough to warrant parole denial.”
Edward Sexton v. Jack H. Wise, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., & United States of Am., 494 F.2d 1176 (5th Cir. 1974). “Notice of a future date for release on parole, however, does not bestow upon the intended parolee a right to that parole prior to final physical release by the Bureau of Prisons. Before a prisoner can be officially paroled, the final step of physical release must be taken.”
United States v. Walker, 117 F. Supp. 503 (S.D.N.Y. 1953). “28 C.F.R. §§ 2.6 and 2.9. . 28 C.F.R. § 2.”
Alexander v. United States Parole (10th Cir. 2000). “The Commission has complied with its regulations, published in 28 C.F.R. § 2.6 [4], but has refused to -3- release [Alexander] because the Commission is concerned that a release now would depreciate the seriousness of his offenses and jeopardize public safety.”
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.