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. § 2.65

[Reserved]

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1993–2019 · leading case: Edward Ford, Jr. v. Charles Massarone, 902 F.3d 309 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Edward Ford, Jr. v. Charles Massarone, 902 F.3d 309 (D.C. Cir. 2018). · cites it 8× “and federal sentences, 28 C.F.R. § 2.65 , the Commission set the deadline for Ford's first D.”
Wilson v. Fullwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2011). · cites it 5× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.65 (a)-(b) (2010). 2 Although the *252 process is thus bifurcated, parole consideration is nonetheless made “on the basis of a single parole eligibility and mandatory release date on the aggregate sentence” and “every decision made by the Commission, including…”
Ford, Jr. v. Massarone, 208 F. Supp. 3d 91 (D.D.C. 2016). · cites it 8× “Code [sentence], was subject to 28 C.F.R. § 2.65 (‘Paroling policy for prisoners serving aggregate U.”
Davis v. Moore, 772 A.2d 204 (D.C. 2001). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.65 (i) (1999). Because the Commission and the District disagreed over whether the GTCA repealed the street time forfeiture provision of § 24-206(a), offenders sentenced in the District to imprisonment were subject to disparate treatment upon revocation of *210…”
Boone v. Menifee, 387 F. Supp. 2d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). · cites it 3× “Code sentence, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.65 (d), Boone argues that the federal portion of his sentence had expired by the time he was released on parole in 1991.”
Wilson v. United States Parole Comm'n, 652 F.3d 348 (3rd Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “The Commission appropriately considered only the D.C. Board of Parole criteria, as opposed to the SRA’s parole provisions for U.”
Fletcher v. Dist. of Columbia, 481 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.D.C. 2007). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.65 . The venue statute does not require a plaintiff to establish that every event that supports his claim occurred in the chosen forum.”
Jackson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 538 F. Supp. 2d 194 (D.D.C. 2008). “Plaintiffs parole eligibility was determined by 28 C.F.R. § 2.65 , the federal regulation which outlines the paroling policy for prisoners serving aggregate United States and D.”
Jackson v. Morris, 8 F. App'x 890 (10th Cir. 2001). “Finally, Jackson contends that during his parole hearing on December 1, 1999, the Parole Commission should have used 28 C.F.R. § 2.65 , which provides the policy for prisoners serving aggregate United States and District of Columbia sentences.”
Russ v. Perrill, 995 F.2d 1001 (10th Cir. 1993). “§ 5017 (b) and 28 C.F.R. 2.65(g)(1), which require that the Parole Commission review each parolee under the YCA at least once per year in order to determine whether to release unconditionally the parolee.”
Roy M. Alexander v. J.H. Crabtree, Warden United States Parole Comm'n, 45 F.3d 439 (10th Cir. 1994). “28 C.F.R. 2.65(e). The decision must be arrived at on a case-by-case basis, and the Commission must equally weigh the prisoner's response to treatment, the seriousness of the offense, and the original parole prognosis, with no one factor capable of excluding the others.”
Russ v. Perrill, 995 F.2d 1001 (10th Cir. 1993). “5017 (b) and 28 C.F.R. 2.65(g)(1), which require that the Parole Commission review each parolee under the YCA at least once per year in order to determine whether to release unconditionally the parolee.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.65(e) — 1 case
Roy M. Alexander v. J.H. Crabtree, Warden United States Parole Comm'n, 45 F.3d 439 (10th Cir. 1994). “28 C.F.R. 2.65(e). The decision must be arrived at on a case-by-case basis, and the Commission must equally weigh the prisoner's response to treatment, the seriousness of the offense, and the original parole prognosis, with no one factor capable of excluding the others.”
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.65(g)(1) — 2 cases
Russ v. Perrill, 995 F.2d 1001 (10th Cir. 1993). “§ 5017 (b) and 28 C.F.R. 2.65(g)(1), which require that the Parole Commission review each parolee under the YCA at least once per year in order to determine whether to release unconditionally the parolee.”
Russ v. Perrill, 995 F.2d 1001 (10th Cir. 1993). “5017 (b) and 28 C.F.R. 2.65(g)(1), which require that the Parole Commission review each parolee under the YCA at least once per year in order to determine whether to release unconditionally the parolee.”
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.