(a) The U.S. Parole Commission shall exercise authority over District of Columbia Code offenders pursuant to section 11231 of the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, 111 Stat. 712, and D.C. Code 24-409. The rules in this subpart shall govern the operation of the U.S. Parole Commission with respect to D.C. Code offenders and shall constitute the parole rules of the District of Columbia, as amended and supplemented pursuant to section 11231(a)(1) of the Act.
(b) The Commission shall have sole authority to grant parole, and to establish the conditions of release, for all District of Columbia Code prisoners who are serving sentences for felony offenses, and who are eligible for parole by statute, including offenders who have been returned to prison upon the revocation of parole or mandatory release. (D.C. Code 24-404 and 408). The above authority shall include youth offenders who are committed to prison for treatment and rehabilitation based on felony convictions under the D.C. Code. (D.C. Code 24-904(a).)
(c) The Commission shall have authority to recommend to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia a reduction in the minimum sentence of a District of Columbia Code prisoner, if the Commission deems such recommendation to be appropriate. (D.C. Code 24-401(c).)
(d) The Commission shall have authority to grant parole to a prisoner who is found to be geriatric, permanently incapacitated, or terminally ill, notwithstanding the minimum term imposed by the sentencing court. (D.C. Code 24-461 through 467.)
(e) The Commission shall have authority over all District of Columbia Code felony offenders who have been released to parole or mandatory release supervision, including the authority to return such offenders to prison upon an order of revocation. (D.C. Code 24-406.)
[65 FR 45888, July 26, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 41530, July 14, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Melvin Taylor v. Edward Reilly, Jr., 685 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 4× “And in 3 2000, the USPC adopted its own regulations regarding suitability for parole, 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.70 -.107 (“2000 Regulations”), which it made applicable to D.”
Ari Bailey v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr., 793 F.3d 127 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
· cites it 4× “(1987) (“1987 Guidelines”), superseded by 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.70 , et seq. (“2000 Guidelines”).”
Long v. Gaines, 167 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Specifically, plaintiffs claim the Commission’s regulations, codified in 28 C.F.R. § 2.70 , et seq., fail to provide parolees with either a prompt determination of probable cause or a timely final revocation decision.”
Johnson v. Dist. of Columbia, 927 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
“See 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.70 - .107. Johnson first became eligible for parole in 2000.”
Wilson v. Fullwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2011).
“But the Wilson Court *263 concluded that the Commission only “applied the regulations that apply to District of Columbia Code Prisoners and Parolees set forth at 28 C.F.R. § 2.70 et seq., rather than the regulations that apply to United States Code Prisoners and Parolees set…”
Fletcher v. Dist. of Columbia, 481 F. Supp. 2d 156 (D.D.C. 2007).
“Board to the Commission, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.70 , et seq.; D.C.Code § 24-131, the Commission held a revocation rehearing.”
Muhammad v. Mendez, 200 F. Supp. 2d 466 (M.D. Penn. 2002).
· cites it 2× “parole regulations, which are codified at 28 C.F.R. § 2.70 et seq. 3 Petitioner received a salient factor score of 6, and a total point score of 3, which indicates that parole should be denied at the initial hearing.”
Brown v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 713 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2010).
“…the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, 111 Stat. 712[.]" 28 C.F.R. § 2.70 (a).”
Ford, Jr. v. Massarone, 208 F. Supp. 3d 91 (D.D.C. 2016).
“The 2000 Guidelines were published in the Code of Federal Regulations, see generally 28 C.F.R. § 2.70 et seq., and initially applied to all D.”
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.