September 6, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 96-1093
UNITED STATES,
Appellee,
v.
MICHAEL A. CROOKER,
Defendant, Appellant.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Torruella, Chief Judge,
Cyr and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
Owen S. Walker, Federal Defender Office, on brief for appellant.
Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, and Ariane D. Vuono,
Assistant U.S. Attorney, on brief for appellee.
Per Curiam. Michael A. Crooker, who is currently
serving a 96-month term of imprisonment, appeals from a
district court order denying his motion to delete or amend a
special condition of supervised release requiring him to
comply with the requirements of the Internal Revenue Service
(I.R.S). We think that Crooker's concern that the condition
is too vague is premature. Crooker's probation officer has
indicated that the I.R.S. will contact Crooker directly with
its requirements and instructions. Cf. United States v.
Gallo, 20 F.3d 7, 12 (1st Cir. 1994) (observing that the
notification process is not limited to the four corners of
the probation order, and that the meaning of a probation
order may be illuminated by the judge's statements, the
probation officer's instructions, or other events, any or all
of which may assist in completing the notification process).
Should the I.R.S. fail to do so on or about the time Crooker
is released--or should the instructions be unclear,
incomplete, or otherwise leave any of Crooker's questions
unanswered--Crooker may seek further clarification from
Probation or from the district court. Similarly, Crooker
may, at that time, bring to the attention of the district
court any concern that the I.R.S. instructions are
inconsistent with the plea agreement or with the district
court's intent at sentencing.
Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1.
-2-