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 C—District of Columbia Code: Prisoners and Parolees

28 C.F.R. § 2.73

Parole suitability criteria

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

(a) In accordance with D.C. Code 24-404(a), the Commission shall be authorized to release a prisoner on parole in its discretion after the prisoner has served the minimum term of the sentence imposed, if the following criteria are met:

(1) The prisoner has substantially observed the rules of the institution;

(2) There is a reasonable probability that the prisoner will live and remain at liberty without violating the law; and

(3) In the opinion of the Commission, the prisoner's release is not incompatible with the welfare of society.

(b) It is the policy of the Commission with respect to District of Columbia Code offenders that the minimum term imposed by the sentencing court presumptively satisfies the need for punishment for the crime of which the prisoner has been convicted, and that the responsibility of the Commission is to account for the degree and the seriousness of the risk that the release of the prisoner would entail. This responsibility is carried out by reference to the Salient Factor Score and the Point Assignment Table at § 2.80. However, there may be exceptional cases in which the gravity of the offense is sufficient to warrant an upward departure from § 2.80 and denial of parole.

[65 FR 45888, July 26, 2000, as amended at 68 FR 41530, July 14, 2003]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 2006–2018 · leading case: Fletcher, Thaddeus v. Reilly, Edward, 433 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fletcher, Thaddeus v. Reilly, Edward, 433 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2006). “6); see 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.73 , 2.80 (1999). No such modifications were made in the regulations governing decisions to grant reparole when the new offense for which parole was revoked was not a *872 D.”
Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2008). “18 and 28 C.F.R § 2.73(b). It is readily apparent (in fact, defendants do not appear to contest) that offense accountability was considered in plaintiffs’ cases.”
Phillips v. Fulwood, 616 F.3d 577 (D.C. Cir. 2010). “Phillips notes that in “exceptional cases” the 2000 regulations permit the Commission to depart upward based on the gravity of the offense, 28 C.F.R. § 2.73 (b), the consideration he terms “offense accountability.”
Roy Daniel v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr., 766 F.3d 57 (D.C. Cir. 2014). “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.73 (b). Under the 2000 Guidelines, the first step in the suitability determination involves assigning points based on the prisoner’s risk of recidivism (his “salient factor score”), 2 the presence of violence in his current or prior offenses, and whether the…”
Daniel v. Smoot, 287 F. Supp. 3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “As evidence of the Commission's breach, Plaintiffs point to: (1) the frequency with which the Commission has rejected hearing examiners' recommendations to grant parole; (2) the Commission's notice of actions in those cases, which, in Plaintiffs' view, assign undue weight to…”
Crutchfield v. United States Parole Comm'n, 438 F. Supp. 2d 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). “, the minimum sentence imposed by the court), (b) the “base guideline range” (any additional term of incarceration that should be served to reflect the “degree and the seriousness of the risk that the release of the prisoner would entail,” 28 C.F.R. § 2.73 ), and (c) the…”
Mcgill v. Sniezek, 735 F. Supp. 2d 162 (M.D. Penn. 2010). “6); see 28 C.F.R. §§ 2.73 , 2.80 (1999). No such modifications were made in the regulations governing decisions to grant reparole when the new offense for which parole was revoked was not a D.”
Hill v. United States Parole Comm'n (D.D.C. 2017). · cites it 2× “2 (November 8, 2016, Hearing Summary) at 4 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 2.73 ); see 28 C.F.R. § 2.80 (o)(4) (specifying effective Guidelines and policies).”
Daniel v. Fulwood (D.D.C. 2018). “Failure to Apply the 1972 Guidelines’ Parole Suitability Factors Plaintiffs first contend that the Commission breached the Settlement Agreement by applying the Commission’s parole suitability criteria under its 2000 regulation, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.73 , instead of the six factors…”
— 28 C.F.R. § 2.73(b) — 1 case
Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2008). “18 and 28 C.F.R § 2.73(b). It is readily apparent (in fact, defendants do not appear to contest) that offense accountability was considered in plaintiffs’ cases.”
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.