September 6, 1996       [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-