42 U.S.C. § 17541
Transferred
[transferred]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: George Vasquez v. Strada
George Vasquez v. Strada (2012)
“In addition to the individual determination under section 3621(b), a prisoner’s participation in, or completion of, Inmate Skills Development programs within the institution is considered separately to determine if additional placement time is warranted as an incentive under 42…”
Krueger v. Martinez (2009)
“42 U.S.C. § 17541 (a). The authorizing statute for the prisoner reentry initiative states, in relevant part: The Attorney General, in coordination with the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, shall, subject to the availability of appropriations, conduct the following activities…”
Izzo v. Wiley (2010)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 17541 (g)(5)(A)(ii). At the time, with good time credit, Mr.”
Derrick Wilson v. Strada (2012)
“In addition to the individual determination under section 3621(b), a prisoner’s participation in, or completion of, Inmate Skills Development programs within the institution is considered separately to determine if additional placement time is warranted as an incentive under 42…”
Rudolph Stanko v. Barack Obama (2010)
“On screening, the District Court dismissed three of them — a claim of retaliatory cruel and unusual punishment, a constitutional challenge to 42 U.S.C. § 17541 (g) (the elderly and family reunification for certain nonviolent offenders pilot program), and an allegation that the…”
Perry McCullough v. Conrad Graber (2013)
“See 42 U.S.C. § 17541 (g)(1). There are several requirements to qualify as an “eligible elderly offender,” including that the offender be at least 65 years of age, serving a non-life sentence for a nonviolent and non-sex offense crime, and “has served the greater of 10 years or…”
Abdullah Brown v. Warden Fairton FCI (2015)
“The BOP exercises it authority, subject to abuse of discretion, to determine individual prisoner RRO placements by applying five factors set forth in § 3621(b) and a sixth factor pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17541 . See Vasquez v. Strada, 684 F.”
Samples v. Wiley (2009)
“Samples contends that, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 17541 (a)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C.”
Mathison v. Davis (2010)
“” 42 U.S.C. § 17541 (g)(1)(A). In pertinent part the statute provides that an eligible offender is “an offender not less than 65 years of age” who “has served the greater of 10 years or 75 percent of the term of impris *346 onment to which the offender was sentenced.”
Herbert Sperling v. David Ebbert (2011)
“The District Court denied the habeas petition, concluding that Sperling is prohibited by statute, 42 U.S.C. § 17541 (g), from eligibility for the EOHDPP, and that the BOP has reasonably construed the governing statute to exclude life-sentenced inmates.”
Bonadonna v. GRONDOLSKY (2011)
“Petitioner challenges the determination by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) that he is ineligible to participate in the Elderly Offender Home Detention Pilot Program (“the pilot program”), 42 U.S.C. § 17541 (g) (“section 17541(g)”), enacted as part of the Second Chance Act…”
George Vasquez v. Strada (2012)
“In addition to the individual determination under section 3621(b), a prisoner’s participation in, or completion of, Inmate Skills Development programs within the institution is considered separately to determine if additional placement time is warranted as an incentive under 42…”
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.