(a) If the prisoner is not serving a new, parolable D.C. Code sentence, the Commission's decision to grant or deny reparole on the parole violation term shall be made by reference to the reparole guidelines at § 2.21. The Commission shall establish a presumptive or effective release date pursuant to § 2.12(b), and conduct interim hearings pursuant to § 2.14.
(b) If the prisoner is eligible for parole on a new D.C. Code felony sentence that has been aggregated with the prisoner's parole violation term, the Commission shall make a decision to grant or deny parole on the basis of the aggregate sentence, and in accordance with the guidelines at § 2.80.
(c) If the prisoner is eligible for parole on a new D.C. Code felony sentence but the prisoner's parole violation term has not commenced (i.e., the warrant has not been executed), the Commission shall make a single parole/reparole decision by applying the guidelines at § 2.80. The Commission shall establish an appropriate date for the execution of the outstanding warrant in order for the guidelines at § 2.80 to be satisfied. In cases where the execution of the warrant will not result in the aggregation of the new sentence and the parole violation term, the Commission shall make parole and reparole decisions that are consistent with the guidelines at § 2.80.
(d) All reparole hearings shall be conducted according to the procedures set forth in § 2.72, and may be combined with the holding of a revocation hearing if the prisoner's parole has not previously been revoked. If the prisoner is serving a period of imprisonment imposed upon revocation of his parole by the D.C. Board of Parole, the Commission shall consider all available and relevant information concerning the prisoner's conduct while on parole, including any allegations of criminal or administrative violations left unresolved by the Board, pursuant to the procedures applicable to initial hearings under § 2.72 and § 2.19(c). The same procedures shall apply in the case of any new information concerning criminal or administrative violations of parole presented to the Commission for the first time following the conclusion of a revocation proceeding that resulted in the revocation of parole and the return of the offender to prison.
[65 FR 45888, July 26, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 37137, July 17, 2001]
Notes of Decisions
Fletcher v. United States Parole Comm'n, 550 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2008).
· cites it 13× “Parole Commission, following two rounds of rule-making in 1998 and 2000, had finalized a regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 , requiring the application of its existing guidelines concerning the reparole of federal prisoners to D.”
Fletcher, Thaddeus v. Reilly, Edward, 433 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
· cites it 5× “at 45,894 ; see 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 (2001). The final regulations “apply to all prisoners and parolees .”
Fletcher v. Dist. of Columbia, 370 F.3d 1223 (D.C. Cir. 2004).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 (a). Fletcher also argues that application to him of the Commission’s guidelines offends the Ex Post Facto Clause because the guidelines were promulgated by the Commission and made applicable to D.”
Nelson v. Williams, 750 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2010).
“In so ordering, the USPC applied the guidelines found at 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 , § 2.21 and § 2.20 and found that [plaintiffs] parole violation behavior had consisted of assault with serious bodily injury intended.”
Gant v. Reilly, 224 F. Supp. 2d 26 (D.D.C. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Finally, it is noteworthy that in the respondents’ opposition, they observed that “the Commission established petitioner’s reparole guidelines under 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 based only upon the finding that petitioner had possessed with intent to distribute over 26 grams of freebased…”
Sparks v. Gaines, 144 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001).
· cites it 2× “” 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 . In turn, section 2.21 states that “[i]f revocation is based upon administrative violation(s) only, grade the behavior as if a Category One offense under § 2.”
Mcgill v. Sniezek, 735 F. Supp. 2d 162 (M.D. Penn. 2010).
· cites it 3× “at 45,894 ; see 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 (2001). The final regulations “apply to all prisoners and parolees .”
Folks v. Beard (D. Maryland 2023).
“See 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 (a) (“If the prisoner is not serving a new, parolable D.”
Nelson v. Williams (D.D.C. 2010).
“In so ordering, the USPC applied the guidelines found at 28 C.F.R. § 2.81 , § 2.21 and § 2.20 and found that [plaintiff’s] parole violation behavior had consisted of assault with serious bodily injury intended.”
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.