28 C.F.R. § 2.9
Study prior to sentencing
When an adult Federal offender has been committed to an institution by the sentencing court for observation and study prior to sentencing, under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 4205(c), the report to the sentencing court is prepared and submitted directly by the Bureau of Prisons.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1969–1988 · leading case: Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969).
Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969). “28 CFR § 2.9 (1968); see Rules of the United States Board of Parole 17-18 (1965).”
United States of Am. Ex Rel. Ciro M. Caruso, N. J. S. P. No. 56349 v. United States Bd. of Parole, 570 F.2d 1150 (3rd Cir. 1978). “28 CFR § 2.9 (1968); see Rules of the United States Board of Parole 17-18 (1965).”
Otis G. Weeks, Jr. v. J. Michael Quinlan, Warden, 838 F.2d 41 (2d Cir. 1988). “” See 28 C.F.R. § 2.9 (1962). Congress, however, has taken no action either to prohibit this form of parole, or to prohibit the Parole Commission from adhering to its interpretation of “parole.”
Lawrence v. Blackwell, 298 F. Supp. 708 (N.D. Ga. 1969). “28 C.F.R. § 2.9 (1968). While the state detainers placed on these plaintiffs restrict their privileges, the court cannot declare those restrictions per se capricious.”
United States v. Burkhead, 567 F. Supp. 1425 (W.D. Mo. 1983). “For it is clear that the Court of Appeals anticipated in both Fraser and Leath that the Parole Commission would follow the Court of Appeals’ suggestion that it “examine its records and, if necessary, to correct any inaccurate information in [the defendant’s] file and reconsider…”
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.