United States v. Spencer, 640 F.3d 513

Spencer pled guilty to bank fraud in Oct. 2005 and was sentenced Feb. 16, 2006 to time served and 3 years supervised release with standard conditions including Condition 6 (notify probation of changes in residence or employment).
A warrant alleging two violations (forged checks and failure to report changes under Condition 6) was issued Feb. 11, 2008 and executed Feb. 27, 2008.
The supervised-release term expired Feb. 16, 2009; revocation hearings were repeatedly adjourned through April 2009 and beyond to allow plea bargaining and pleading by state cases.
During 2009 the government shifted position and sought additional adjournments; the revocation petition was eventually resolved with a December 3, 2009 ruling revoking supervised release and imposing a prison term.
Spencer argued the district court lacked jurisdiction due to delays not “reasonably necessary” under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(i), and challenged the interpretation of Condition 6 used to find a violation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction under § 3583(i) to revoke after expiration.	Delays after expiration were not reasonably necessary.	The court may adjudicate if warrants were issued during supervision and delays were reasonably necessary.	Yes, jurisdiction retained; delays not shown to be unreasonable.
Whether the delay between July 24 and December 3, 2009 was reasonably necessary.	Lengthy delay beyond expiration was unnecessary and prejudicial.	Delay may be reasonable given unresolved issues and government position.	Delay found reasonably necessary; jurisdiction preserved.
Whether Spencer violated Condition 6 by not reporting changes in employment and address.	Condition 6 applies and was violated; he failed to notify.	Condition 6 requires notification only if changes could be communicated at least ten days prior; no such notice possible for firing.	Error: Condition 6 misinterpreted; violation not proven; remand for proper interpretation.
Whether Condition 6 was sufficiently clear and specific as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(f).	Condition 6 was clear enough to prohibit failure to report.	The condition’s language is too broad or misapplied; it may not prohibit certain unavoidable changes.	Condition 6 cannot be expanded post hoc; need remand to reassess under a proper, sufficiently clear reading.

United States v. Ramos, 401 F.3d 111 (2d Cir. 2005) (retention of jurisdiction for revocation when warrants issued during supervision; delays evaluated for reasonableness)
United States v. Morales, 45 F.3d 693 (2d Cir. 1995) (context for § 3583(i) purposes and reasonableness of post-expiration adjudication)
United States v. Janvier, 599 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 2010) (historical basis for post-expiration jurisdiction under § 3583(i))
United States v. Reeves, 591 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2010) (clear-and-specific requirement for conditions under § 3583(f))