C.F.R. » Title 28 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE › PART 2—PAROLE, RELEASE, SUPERVISION AND RECOMMITMENT OF PRISONERS, YOUTH OFFENDERS, AND JUVENILE DELINQUENTS › Subpart A—United States Code Prisoners and Parolees

28 C.F.R. § 2.62

Rewarding assistance in the prosecution of other offenders; criteria and guidelines

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

(a) The Commission may consider as a factor in the parole release decision-making a prisoner's assistance to law enforcement authorities in the prosecution of other offenders.

(1) The assistance must have been an important factor in the investigation and/or prosecution of an offender other than the prisoner. Other significant assistance (e.g., providing information critical to prison security) may also be considered.

(2) The assistance must be reported to the Commission in sufficient detail to permit a full evaluation. However, no promises, express or implied, as to a Parole Commission reward shall be given any weight in evaluating a recommendation for leniency.

(3) The release of the prisoner must not threaten the public safety.

(4) The assistance must not have been adequately rewarded by other official action.

(b) If the assistance meets the above criteria, the Commission may consider providing a reduction of up to one year from the presumptive parole date that the Commission would have deemed warranted had such assistance not occurred. If the prisoner would have been continued to the expiration of sentence, any reduction will be taken from the actual date of the expiration of the sentence. Reductions exceeding the one year limit specified above may be considered only in exceptional circumstances.

(c) In the case of an eligible DC Code prisoner whose assistance meets the criteria of this section, the Commission may consider deducting a point under Category V of the Point Assignment Table at § 2.80, in addition to any other deduction for positive program achievement, when considering such prisoner for parole. In the case of a DC Code prisoner with an unserved minimum term, the Commission may consider filing an application under § 2.76 for a reduction of up to one-third of such term less applicable good time.

[52 FR 44389, Nov. 19, 1987. Redesignated at 63 FR 39176, July 21, 1998, as amended at 64 FR 5613, Feb. 4, 1999]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1990–2001 · leading case: Karl L. Cannon v. U.S. Dep't of Just., United States Parole Comm'n, 973 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Karl L. Cannon v. U.S. Dep't of Just., United States Parole Comm'n, 973 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 5× “28 C.F.R. § 2.62 (a)(2). Consistent with the Commission’s retention of jurisdiction, 28 C.”
United States v. Shaun K. O'Neil, 11 F.3d 292 (1st Cir. 1993). “, 28 C.F.R. § 2.62 app. (1993) (setting out United States Parole Commission’s policy statement to the effect that “an adequate period of renewed supervision following release from reimprisonment or reinstatement to supervision, must be available”); id.”
Glenda KLEEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE Comm'n, Respondent-Appellee, 125 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1997). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.62 (g). B. Homicide Under the Baja Penal Code The definition of homicide is contained in Article 123, which states simply, “Whomever deprives another of his life commits the crime of homicide.”
Adebola Olumbunm Ajala v. United States Parole Comm'n, 997 F.2d 651 (9th Cir. 1993). “30,703, 30,706 (1993) (to be codified at 28 C.F.R. § 2.62 (i)(2)). Neither the validity nor the applicability of that rule is before us in this appeal and we do not consider it.”
Chris Hansen v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 904 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1990). “§§ 4106A(b)(l)(A), (B); see also 28 C.F.R. § 2.62 (g) (discussing decision-making criteria for Parole Commission).”
Comfort Asare, Reg. No. 03671-000 v. United States Parole Comm'n, 2 F.3d 540 (4th Cir. 1993). “Although we are satisfied that the treaty and applicable statutes explicitly establish the scheme as we have described it, we note that the Department of Justice, the Parole Commission, and the Bureau of Prisons have reached the same conclusion.”
Kass v. Barr, 83 F.3d 1186 (10th Cir. 1996). “§ 4106 (c, d); 28 C.F.R. § 2.62 (a)(1). The Parole Commission held a hearing in October 1989, denied parole, and continued his sentence to expiration.”
Joseph Anthony Bennett, Petitioner-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. United States Parole Comm'n, Respondent-Appellee/cross-Appellant, 83 F.3d 324 (10th Cir. 1996). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.62 (k). Thus, we hold that the district court correctly held it lacked jurisdiction over petitioner’s collateral attack on the Commission’s order.”
Iljas Cafi v. United States Parole Comm'n, 268 F.3d 467 (7th Cir. 2001). “1992), the Fifth Circuit noted that the Commission had informed it of a recently adopted interpretive regulation which would add the following language to 28 C.F.R. § 2.62 (a)(1): "U.S.Code provisions requiring mandatory minimum terms or minimum periods of supervised release…”
Contreras v. USPC (5th Cir. 2000). · cites it 9× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.62 (h)(6). When two executive examiners concur, they form a “panel,” which forwards a recommendation to the Commission for a final decision.”
Cannon v. U.S. Dept. of Just., U.S. Parole Com'n (5th Cir. 1992). · cites it 4× “The jurisdiction of the Parole Commission to set a release date and periods and conditions of supervised release extends until the transferee is released from prison or the transferee's case is otherwise transferred to a district court pursuant to an order of the 25 See 28…”
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.