28 C.F.R. § 2.86

Release on parole; rescission for misconduct

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

(a) When a parole effective date has been set, actual release on parole on that date shall be conditioned upon the individual maintaining a good conduct record in the institution or prerelease program to which the prisoner has been assigned.

(b) The Commission may reconsider any grant of parole prior to the prisoner's actual release on parole, and may advance or retard a parole effective date or rescind a parole date previously granted based upon the receipt of any new and significant information concerning the prisoner including disciplinary infractions. A Commissioner may retard a parole date for disciplinary infractions (e.g., to permit the use of graduated sanctions) for up to 120 days without a hearing, in addition to any retardation ordered under § 2.83(d).

(c) If a parole effective date is rescinded for disciplinary infractions, an appropriate sanction shall be determined by reference to § 2.36.

(d) After a prisoner has been granted a parole effective date, the institution shall notify the Commission of any serious disciplinary infractions committed by the prisoner prior to the date of actual release. In such case, the prisoner shall not be released until the institution has been advised that no change has been made in the Commission's order granting parole.

(e) A grant of parole becomes operative upon the authorized delivery of a certificate of parole to the prisoner, and the signing of that certificate by the prisoner, who thereafter becomes a parolee.

[65 FR 70669, Nov. 27, 2000, as amended at 67 FR 57946, Sept. 13, 2002; 86 FR 45861, Aug. 17, 2021]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2006–2021 · leading case: Thompson v. Veach, 501 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Thompson v. Veach, 501 F.3d 832 (7th Cir. 2007). “The USPC delayed Thompson’s February 26 parole date pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.86 and scheduled a rescission hearing for June 29, 2005.”

Crutchfield v. United States Parole Comm'n, 438 F. Supp. 2d 472 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 4× “The Commission thereafter reopened and voided its July 6, 2001 Notice of Action, and scheduled a reconsideration hearing that would apply the parole rescission guidelines pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.86 . At the rescission hearing held on December 18, 2002, hearing examiner Otis…”

Speight-Bey v. Johnson (D.D.C. 2021). “Speight-Bey escaped from that program, so the Commission unilaterally adjusted his presumptive release date to September 20, 2019, to permit further action under 28 C.F.R. §2.86 (b). While Speight-Bey was on the loose, a Hearing Officer conducted a hearing in Speight-Bey’s…”

Rodgers v. Meeks (W.D. Pa. 2020). “28 C.F.R. § 2.86 (b) also applies to D.C.”

Thompson, Joseph v. Veach, Rick (7th Cir. 2007). “The USPC delayed Thompson’s February 26 parole date pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.86 and scheduled a rescission hearing for June 29, 2005.”

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.