28 C.F.R. § 2.63

Quorum and voting requirements

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

(a) A quorum of the Commission consists of the majority of those Commissioners holding office at the time an action is under consideration. Any action authorized by law may be decided by the majority vote of the Commissioners holding office at the time the action is taken. Voting requirements in parole decision-making are established in other provisions of this part, including paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.

(b)(1) In the event of a tie vote of the Commission's membership on an issue that requires the vote or authorization of the Commission, the issue that is the subject of the vote is not adopted by the Commission.

(2) If the matter that is the subject of the tie vote is whether to reopen or reconsider a previous decision of the Commission, the previous decision shall remain in effect. This includes decisions as to whether to rescind a parole date, to revoke parole or supervised release, or to grant parole after parole has been denied under 18 U.S.C. 4206(d).

(3) If the matter that is the subject of a tie vote is whether to grant parole at any initial hearing, 15-year reconsideration hearing, or D.C. Code rehearing, that decision shall be the Commissioner vote that is in agreement with the hearing examiner panel. If there is a tie vote and no commissioner agrees with the hearing examiner panel, then the decision will be the Commissioner's vote most favorable to the prisoner.

(4) If the matter that is the subject of the tie vote is whether to grant or deny release at the two-thirds date of the sentence per 18 U.S.C. 4206(d), or to terminate parole after the parolee has been on parole for 5 years per 18 U.S.C. 4211(c) and D.C. Code sec. 24-404(a-1)(3), the prisoner must be granted release under the statute or parole must be terminated respectively.

(5) If the matter that is the subject of a tie vote is a decision under appellate review per § 2.26, if no concurrence is reached, the decision under appellate review shall be considered affirmed. This rule also applies to decisions under § 2.17 to remove a case from the original jurisdiction of the Commission.

(6) The Commission may re-vote on a case disposition to resolve a tie vote or other impasse in satisfying a voting requirement of these rules.

(c) If there is only one Commissioner holding office, all provisions in these rules requiring concurring votes or resolving split decisions are suspended until the membership of the Commission is increased, and any action may be taken by one Commissioner.

[83 FR 58499, Nov. 20, 2018]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1986–2011 · leading case: Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “28 C.F.R. § 2.63 (b)(1),(2) (2011). 10 . On July 21, 2005, the Parole Commission's General Counsel certified that consideration of the procedures in Bowers' case could be closed to the public under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.”

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). “60 and/or assistance in the prosecution of other offenders pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 2.63. Friedland has provided both.”

United States v. Friedland, 879 F. Supp. 420 (D.N.J. 1995). “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 been warranted had such assistance not occurred.”

United States v. Friedland, 83 F.3d 1531 (3rd Cir. 1996). · cites it 2× “60 and/or assistance in the prosecution of other offenders pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 2.63. Friedland has provided both.”

Davis v. United States, 649 F. Supp. 754 (C.D. Ill. 1986). “Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.63 (a)(2), the Parole Commission requires such a statement before it will consider a defendant’s cooperation in mitigation.”

Paul Dicaro v. William Perrill, Warden, 68 F.3d 483 (10th Cir. 1995). · cites it 2× “3 On appeal, DiCaro alleges that in making its parole decision the Commission (1) failed to properly consider his eligibility for a reward pursuant to 28 C.F.R. 2.63, and his institutional adjustment record, (2) impermissibly engaged in double counting by using the same facts 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.