If a parolee is alleged to have violated a condition of parole, one commissioner shall hear the case on revocation of the parole at the time and place that the Commission designates. Each individual charged with a parole violation is entitled to be represented by counsel of the individual’s choice or, if eligible, counsel provided by the Public Defender’s office. The Commission shall keep a record of the hearing. If the commissioner finds from the evidence that the parolee has violated a condition of parole, the commissioner may take any action that the commissioner considers appropriate, including: subject to subsection (d)(1) of this section, revoking the order of parole; setting a future hearing date for consideration for reparole; and remanding the individual to the Division of Correction or local correctional facility from which the individual was paroled; or continuing parole: without modification of its conditions; or with modification of its conditions, including a requirement that the parolee spend all or part of the remaining parole period in a home detention program. Subject to paragraph (4) of this subsection, if an order of parole is revoked due to a technical violation, as defined in § 6–101 of this article, the commissioner hearing the parole revocation may require the individual to serve a period of imprisonment of: for a first violation, not more than 15 days; for a second violation, not more than 30 days; and for a third violation, not more than 45 days. Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection and further action by the Commission, if the order of parole is revoked for a fourth or subsequent technical violation or a violation that is not a technical violation, the commissioner hearing the parole revocation, in the commissioner’s discretion, may require the incarcerated individual to serve any unserved portion of the sentence originally imposed. An incarcerated individual may not receive credit for time between release on parole and revocation of parole if: the incarcerated individual was serving a sentence for a violent crime when parole was revoked; and the parole was revoked due to a finding that the incarcerated individual committed a violent crime while on parole. There is a rebuttable presumption that the limits on the period of imprisonment that may be imposed for a technical violation established in paragraph (1) of this subsection are applicable. The presumption may be rebutted if a commissioner finds and states on the record, after consideration of the following factors, that adhering to the limits on the period of imprisonment established under paragraph (1) of this subsection would create a risk to public safety, a victim, or a witness: the nature of the parole violation; the facts and circumstances of the crime for which the parolee was convicted; and the parolee’s history. On finding that adhering to the limits would create a risk to public safety, a victim, or a witness under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph, the commissioner may: direct imposition of a longer period of imprisonment than provided in paragraph (1) of this subsection, but no more than the time remaining on the original sentence; or commit the parolee to the Maryland Department of Health for treatment under § 8–507 of the Health – General Article. A finding under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph or an action under subparagraph (iii) of this paragraph is subject to appeal under Title 12, Subtitle 3 or Subtitle 4 of the Courts Article. Subject to subsection (d) of this section, if a sentence has commenced as provided under § 9–202(c)(2) of this article and the incarcerated individual is serving that sentence when the order of parole is revoked, any reimposed portion of the sentence originally imposed shall begin at the expiration of any sentences which were begun under § 9–202(c)(2) of this article. The incarcerated individual may seek judicial review in the circuit court within 30 days after receiving the written decision of the Commission. The court shall hear the action on the record.