(a)(1) Following an initial or subsequent hearing, the Commission may—
(i) Set an effective date of parole within nine months of the date of the hearing;
(ii) Set a presumptive parole date at least ten months but not more than three years from the date of the hearing;
(iii) Continue the prisoner to the expiration of sentence if the prisoner's mandatory release date is within three years of the date of the hearing;
(iv) Schedule a reconsideration hearing at three years from the month of the hearing; or
(v) Remand the case for a rehearing on the next available docket (but no later than 180 days from the date of the hearing) for the consideration of additional information.
(2) Exceptions. (i) With respect to the rule on three-year reconsideration hearings. If the prisoner's current offense behavior resulted in the death of a victim and, at the time of the hearing, the prisoner must serve more than three years before reaching the minimum of the applicable guideline range, the Commission may schedule a reconsideration hearing at a date up to five years from the month of the last hearing, but not beyond the minimum of the applicable guideline range.
(ii) With respect to youth offenders. Regardless of whether a presumptive parole date has been set, a reconsideration hearing shall be conducted every twelve months for a youth offender, and on the next available docket after the Commission is informed that the prisoner has completed his program plan.
(b) When a rehearing is scheduled, the prisoner shall be given a rehearing during the month specified by the Commission, or on the docket of hearings immediately preceding that month if no docket of hearings is scheduled for the month specified.
(c) At a reconsideration hearing, the Commission may take any action that it could take at an initial hearing. The scheduling of a reconsideration hearing does not imply that parole will be granted at such hearing.
(d) Prior to a parole reconsideration hearing, the Commission shall review the prisoner's record, including an institutional progress report which shall be submitted 60 days prior to the hearing. Based on its review of the record, the Commission may grant an effective date of parole without conducting the scheduled hearing.
(e) Notwithstanding a previously established reconsideration hearing, the Commission may reopen any case for a special reconsideration hearing, as provided in § 2.28, upon the receipt of new and significant information concerning the prisoner.
[65 FR 70664, Nov. 27, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 57945, Sept. 13, 2002; 69 FR 5274, Feb. 4, 2004]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case:
Wilson v. Fullwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2011).
Wilson v. Fullwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246 (D.D.C. 2011).
“Pursuant to its decision to calculate Wilson’s Total Guideline Range without assessing the twelve (12) to sixteen (16) months for possession of a knife, on January 26, 2005, the Parole Commission issued a Notice of Action pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (e) scheduling a special…”
Daniel v. Smoot, 316 F. Supp. 3d 79 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
· cites it 2× “As to set-offs, the 2000 Guidelines called for a presumptive three-year time period between parole consideration hearings, 28 C.F.R § 2.75 (a)(1)(iv), while granting the Commission discretion to shorten that period if "new and significant information concerning the prisoner"…”
Hunter v. Reilly, 693 F. Supp. 2d 53 (D.D.C. 2010).
“However, in June 2009, the USPC took the following action: Reopen pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (e) and remand for a new parole determination hearing.”
McKissick v. United States Parole Comm'n, 295 F. Supp. 2d 643 (S.D.W. Va 2003).
· cites it 3× “80(c), and (2) continued his rehearing for five years under 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (a)(1)(h). 1. USPC’s calculation of Salient Factor Scores does not violate ex post facto clause Petitioner implies that because the District of Columbia Parole Board “did not use a Salient Factor Score…”
Clinton Eldridge v. Catricia Howard, 70 F.4th 543 (9th Cir. 2023).
“3d at 83 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (a)(1)(iv), (e)). In his petition, Eldridge argues that the Commission improperly applied the longer 2000 guidelines “set-off” period to his 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019 parole rehearings, rather than the shorter 1972 guidelines period.”
Crutchfield v. United States Parole Comm'n, 438 F. Supp. 2d 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2006).
“” 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (e). Section 2.28, in turn, states: “If a prisoner receives an additional concurrent or consecutive federal sentence following his initial parole consideration, the Regional Commissioner shall reopen his case for a new initial hearing .”
Rodgers v. Meeks (W.D. Pa. 2020).
· cites it 4× “Here, Rodgers’ procedural due process claim contends that the Commission impermissibly failed to follow its own regulations by not basing its decision to reopen his parole determination on “new and significant” information as required by 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (e). Accordingly,…”
Hill v. United States Parole Comm'n (D.D.C. 2017).
· cites it 3× “See 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (a)(2)(i) (requiring hearings at least every five years where “offense behavior resulted in the death of a victim”).”
Eldridge v. Von Blanckensee (D. Ariz. 2024).
“1 offenders is three years, 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (a)(1)(iv), whereas the presumptive set off for the 2 D.”
Wilson v. Fulwood (D.D.C. 2011).
“Pursuant to its decision to calculate Wilson’s Total Guideline Range without assessing the twelve (12) to sixteen (16) months for possession of a knife, on January 26, 2005, the Parole Commission issued a Notice of Action pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (e) scheduling a special…”
Hunter v. Reilly (D.D.C. 2010).
“However, in June 2009, the USPC took the following action: Reopen pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.75 (e) and remand for a new parole determination hearing.”
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.