Opinion ID: 612705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Parole Commission's May 2005 original jurisdiction decision

Text: On April 19, 2005, Commissioner Spagnoli voted to designate the case for the Parole Commission's original jurisdiction. Per agency practice, each Commissioner voted on the case without holding an additional hearing. See 28 C.F.R. § 2.17(a). Commissioner Spagnoli wrote a four page memorandum disagreeing with the Hearing Panel recommendation to grant Bowers' mandatory parole effective June 21, 2005, and instead voted to deny mandatory parole because there was a reasonable probability that [Bowers would] commit a federal, state or local crime and that you seriously violated institution rules and regulations. Commissioner Cushwa agreed with Commissioner Spagnoli on April 20, 2005. That same day, the Parole Commission informed Bowers that his case had been designated as Original Jurisdiction and referred to the National Commissioners for decision. On May 6, 2005, Commissioner Mitchell, the Regional Commissioner on the case, signed off on the order prepared by the Hearing Panel granting Bowers mandatory parole effective June 21, 2005. Three days later, Chairman Reilly also signed the order. On May 12, 2005, Commissioner Fulwood recused himself from voting on Bowers' case because he previously served for 29 years in law enforcement and during that period there were a number of police officers killed in the performance of duty and in this case a police[man] was murdered. The remaining four Parole Commissioners were thus evenly spit in the original jurisdiction decision. Due to the 2-2 split vote, Chairman Reilly sought the advice of the Parole Commission's legal counsel, Rockne Chickinell. In a memorandum dated May 13, 2005, Chickinell stated because the Commission has not found by a majority vote of the Commission that one of the permissible reasons for denying mandatory parole exists, the Commission must grant Bowers mandatory parole in order to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 4206(d). [9] That same day, Regional Commissioner Mitchell and Chairman Reilly signed another order granting Bowers mandatory parole. By Notice of Action dated May 17, 2005, the Parole Commission informed Bowers of its decision to grant him mandatory parole effective June 21, 2005. The Notice stated the Commission has not made a finding that one of the permissible reasons for denying mandatory parole exists in your case. The Notice also stated the decision was appealable to the Commission under 28 C.F.R. [§] 2.27.