(a) Prisoners who demonstrate superior program achievement (in addition to a good conduct record) may be considered for a limited advancement of the presumptive date previously set according to the schedule below. Such reduction will normally be considered at an interim hearing or pre-release review. It is to be stressed that a clear conduct record is expected; this reduction applies only to cases with documented sustained superior program achievement over a period of 9 months or more in custody.
(b) Superior program achievement may be demonstrated in areas such as educational, vocational, industry, or counseling programs, and is to be considered in light of the specifics of each case. A report from the Bureau of Prisons based upon successful completion of a residential substance abuse program of at least 500 hours will be given prompt review by the Commission for a possible advancement under this section.
(c) Upon a finding of superior program achievement, a previously set presumptive date may be advanced. The normal maximum advancement permissible for superior program achievement during the prisoner's entire term shall be as set forth in the following schedule. It is the intent of the Commission that this maximum be exceeded only in the most clearly exceptional cases.
(d) Partial advancements may be given (for example, a case with superior program achievement during only part of the term or a case with both superior program achievement and minor disciplinary infraction(s)). Advancements may be given at different times; however, the limits set forth in the following schedule shall apply to the total combined advancement.
(e) Schedule of Permissible Reductions for Superior Program Achievement.
Total months required by
original presumptive date | Permissible reduction |
|---|
| 14 months or less | Not applicable. |
| 15 to 22 months | Up to 1 month. |
| 23 to 30 months | Up to 2 months. |
| 31 to 36 months | Up to 3 months. |
| 37 to 42 months | Up to 4 months. |
| 43 to 48 months | Up to 5 months. |
| 49 to 54 months | Up to 6 months. |
| 55 to 60 months | Up to 7 months. |
| 61 to 66 months | Up to 8 months. |
| 67 to 72 months | Up to 9 months. |
| 73 to 78 months | Up to 10 months. |
| 79 to 84 months | Up to 11 months. |
| 85 to 90 months | Up to 12 months. |
| 91 plus months | Up to 13 months. 1 |
| 1 Plus up to 1 additional month for each 6 months or fraction thereof, by which the original date exceeds 96 months. |
(f) For cases originally continued to expiration, the statutory good time date (calculated under 18 U.S.C. 4161) will be used for computing the maximum reduction permissible and as the base from which the reduction is to be subtracted for prisoners serving sentences of less than five years. For prisoners serving sentences of five or more, the two-thirds date (calculated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 4206(d)) will be used for these purposes. If the prisoner's presumptive release date has been further reduced by extra good time (18 U.S.C. 4162) and such reduction equals or exceeds the reduction applicable for superior program achievement, the Commission will not give an additional reduction for superior program achievement.
[44 FR 55004, Sept. 24, 1979; 44 FR 59527, Oct. 16, 1979, as amended at 49 FR 26580, June 28, 1984; 61 FR 4351, Feb. 6, 1996]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases, 1982–2019 · leading case:
Holt v. Terris, 269 F. Supp. 3d 788 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
Holt v. Terris, 269 F. Supp. 3d 788 (E.D. Mich. 2017).
· cites it 4× “before the Magistrate Judge and this Court) is based on subsection (f) of 28 C.F.R. § 2.60 . (See R. 1, PID 8; R. 6, PID 70; R.”
United States v. David Friedland, David J. Friedland, in No. 95-5582. David Friedland v. Douglas Lansing, Warden, Fed. Corr. Inst., Ft. Dix, Nj United States Parole Comm'n David J. Friedland, in No. 95-5583. David Friedland v. United States of Am., David J. Friedland, In, 83 F.3d 1531 (3rd Cir. 1996).
“The Commission may even consider an advancement of the presumptive release date for (1) superior program achievement over a period of 9 months in custody, pursuant to the provisions of 28 C.F.R. 2.60 and/or assistance in the prosecution of other offenders pursuant to 28 C.”
Zaccour v. Baer, 629 F. Supp. 259 (E.D. Va. 1986).
· cites it 8× “At that time, the petitioner sought credit for his outstanding institutional adjustment under 28 C.F.R. § 2.60 (1985). He submitted to the panel letters of commendation from the staff at the prison and evidence that his job performance within the prison had been exemplary.”
United States v. Friedland, 879 F. Supp. 420 (D.N.J. 1995).
“28 C.F.R. § 2.60 . The Commission may consider as a factor in the parole release decisionmaking a prisoner’s assistance to law enforcement authorities in the prosecution of other offenders.”
Delancy v. Crabtree, 131 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 1997).
· cites it 9× “2 The Commission considered Delaney’s request under 28 C.F.R. § 2.60 , which had been recently amended in response to Section 3621’s incentive provision.”
Ted J. Otsuki v. United States Parole Comm'n, 777 F.2d 585 (10th Cir. 1985).
· cites it 3× “The issue presented is whether under the superior program achievement regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 2.60 , the Parole Commission may decline to advance the parole date to the maximum extent allowed because of the seriousness of a prisoner’s offense.”
Briggs v. United States Parole Comm'n, 611 F. Supp. 306 (N.D. Ill. 1984).
· cites it 2× “Petitioner submitted numerous documentary exhibits and made an oral statement in support of his request that he be considered for “Superior Program Achievement,” see 28 C.F.R. § 2.60 (1983), a program which permitted the Commission to advance his release date.”
Masselli v. United States Parole Comm'n, 631 F. Supp. 1442 (S.D.N.Y. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Subtracting this period from his mandatory two-thirds release date of September 28, 1985, he calculates that he should have been released on February 28, 1986.”
United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531 (3rd Cir. 1996).
· cites it 2× “The Commission may even consider an advancement of the presumptive release date for (1) superior program achievement over a period of 9 months in custody, pursuant to the provisions of 28 C.F.R. 2.60 and/or assistance in the prosecution of other offenders pursuant to 28 C.”
Lewis L. Hatton v. T.M. Keohane, Warden, F.C.I., Terminal Island, Ca, 693 F.2d 88 (9th Cir. 1982).
“The panel then reduced the presumptive date by nine months because Hatton had demonstrated superior program achievement under 28 C.F.R. § 2.60 . The panel explicitly stated that its net recommendation of 51 months was below the applicable guideline range of 60 to 72 months…”
Istvan Kele v. Peter Carlson, Warden, U.S. Parole Comm'n, 877 F.2d 775 (9th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 2× “The parole examination board recommended appellant’s request be denied, stating: [Appellant] has obviously accomplished considerable (sic) since his incarceration, however, given the nature [of] and the aggravating factors related to the offense[,] the panel finds no basis to…”
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.