Opinion ID: 612705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Parole Commission's February 17, 2005 reopening

Text: The lawfulness of the February 17, 2005, decision is dependent on whether the Parole Commission received new and significant adverse information pursuant to 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f). Section 2.28(f) provides: Upon receipt of new and significant adverse information ..., a Commissioner may refer the case to the National Commissioners with his recommendation and vote to schedule the case for a special reconsideration hearing. Such referral shall automatically retard the prisoner's scheduled release date until a final decision is reached in the case. 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f). On February 16, 2005, the Parole Commission received notice from Ranger Patrick's wife, the registered victim, stating she had not been notified of Bowers' mandatory parole hearing. On February 17, 2005, the Parole Commission received a letter from Ranger Patrick's wife indicating a desire to provide additional information relevant to the § 4206(d) factors. That same day, Commissioners Spagnoli and Cushwa signed an order reopening Bowers' case pursuant to § 2.28(f) for a special reconsideration hearing. [16] Although Bowers contends the information received by the Commission was not new and significant adverse information, that phrase has been interpreted broadly by the courts. See Lewis v. Beeler, 949 F.2d 325, 328 (10th Cir.1991) (noting information is new if it is not received by the Commission before the release decision that is to be revisited); Goble v. Matthews, 814 F.2d 1104, 1108 (6th Cir.1987) (stating information may be new if it was in the parole file but inadvertently overlooked at the time of the release decision). We conclude new and significant adverse information is broad enough to include a letter from a registered victim indicating her desire to provide information related to the § 4206(d) factors. The registered victim's February 17, 2005, letter was new in that it was not received by the Commission before Bowers' December 21, 2004, mandatory parole hearing. See Lewis, 949 F.2d at 328. The letter was also significant as evidenced by the Parole Act's mandate that the Commission  shall consider, if available and relevant: ... a statement ... by any victim of the offense for which the prisoner is imprisoned.... 18 U.S.C. § 4207(5) (emphasis added). The registered victim was unable to provide information pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4207 at Bowers' original mandatory parole hearing due to lack of notice. Further, the letter was significant because the information proffered by the registered victim was relevant to the § 4206(d) factors. Because the letter constituted new and significant adverse information as contemplated by 28 C.F.R. § 2.28(f), we conclude the Parole Commission acted within its statutory and regulatory authority when it reopened Bowers' case on February 17, 2005, to permit consideration of the registered victim's information.