A ft erexami ni ng t he br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned * unani m ous l yt o honort he part i es ’ r eques tfora dec i s i on on the br i efs w i thoutor al a rg u m e n t. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t8,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. N o. 07- 2072 RANDA LL A. CRI S LE R,

D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT

F OR THE DI S TR I CT OF NE W M EX I CO ( D. C. NO. CR- 0 3 - 2 8 6 J C) * S ub m i t t ed o n the bri efs: Phi l l i p P. M edr ano, A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder , A l buquer que, N ew M e x ico , fo r D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. L arr yG óm ez, A ct i ng U ni t ed St at es A t t or neyand D avi d N . W i l l i ams, A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , A l buquer que, N ew M exi co, forPl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee. B efo re LU CE RO , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge.-2-

T hi s appea l conce r ns t he di s tr i ctcour t ’ s author i tyt o r evoke pr obat i on aft er th e ter m o f

p ro b a tio n h a s e x p ire d . B e c a u se th e d istric t co u rt lac k e d a u th o rityin t hi s cas e, w e mustr ever s e the r evoca t i on. O n O ct ober9, 2003, R andal l C r i s l erpl eade d gui l tybefor e the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D i s t r i ctof N ew M exi co t o fal s e per s onat i on of a offi ceror e m p lo y e e o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s , s ee 18 U . S. C . § 912. H e w as s ent ence d on February18, 2004, t o t hr ee y ear s on pr obat i on. A s a s peci al condi t i on of the p ro b a tio n , M r. C ri s le r w a s n o t to p o s s e s s o r c o n s u m e a lc o h o l. O n A p ri l 5 , 2 0 0 6 , a pr obat i on offi cerfi l ed a pe t i t i on al l egi ng thatM r . C r i s l erhad vi ol at ed that condi t i on on February17. T he di s t r i ctcour ts chedul ed a he ar i ng on t he pet i t i on forJ une 15, 2006, but gr ant ed M r . C r i s l era cont i nuance . A tt he r es chedul ed hea r i ng on Sept ember5, 2006, t he courtfound thatM r . C r i s l erhad vi ol at ed hi s pr obat i on bycons um i ng a lco h o l. Itd e c id e d , h o w e v e r, n o t to re v o k e M r. C risle r’s p ro b a tio n . In ste a d , it s a i d t h a ti two u l d “ h o l d t h e p e t i t i o n i n a b e y a n c e fo ra p e r i o d o f fi v e mo n th s , ” R. V ol . I I I at6, and i ts peci fi ed s ever al new condi t i ons of M r . C r i s l er ’ s cont i nued pr obat i on, i ncl udi ng t hathe w as nott o cont actanypas templ oy er s and thathe w oul d be s ubj ectt o el ectr oni c moni t or i ng of hi s al cohol cons um pt i on. O n February27, 2007, a pr obat i on offi cerfi l ed an “ A m ended Pet i t i on for R evoca t i on of Supervi s ed R el eas e. ” R . D oc. 57. T he entryon the pet i t i on for-3-

“D at e Supervi s i on E xpi r es ” i s “02/ 17/ 2007, ” i d. , t en day s ear l i er . T he pet i t i on r epea t s t he ea r l i eral l egat i on of an a l cohol - r el at ed vi ol at i on on February17, 2006, and adds t w o al l eged vi ol at i ons on February18, 2007 ( one dayaft erexpi r at i on of t he t erm of pr obat i on) : s endi ng an emai l t o a form erempl oy erand r emovi ng an el ectr oni c al cohol m oni t or . A ta hea r i ng on M ar ch 7, 2007, M r . C r i s l erar gued th a t th e c o u rt w a s w ith o u t ju risd ictio n to c o n sid e r th e p e tit io n b e c a u se h is pr obat i on had expi r ed on February17. T he A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t orney r es ponded that“the r evoca t i on hear i ng hel d on Sept ember5, 2006, i s pendi ng. ” R . V o l. IV at 3. T h e c o u rth eld th at i t had juri sd ict ion u n d er 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 6 5 (c), found the al l egat i ons i n t he pr obat i on offi cer ’ s pet i t i on t o be true, r evoked M r . C r i s l er ’ s pr obat i on, and s ent ence d hi m t o 90 day s ’ i m pr i s onm entand 12 m on t hs’ s up ervi sed rel ease. M r. C ri sl er appeals . S ect i on 35 65 (c) st at es: T he pow erof the courtt o r evoke a s ent ence of pr obat i on for vi ol at i on of a c ondi t i on of pr obat i on, and t o i m pos e anothers ent ence , ext ends bey ond t he expi r at i on of the t erm of pr obat i on foranyper i od re a so n a b lyn e c e ss a ryfo r th e a dju d ica tio n o f m a tters a risin g b e fo re its expi r at i on i f, pr i ort o i t s expi r at i on, a w arr antors um m ons has been i s s ued on the bas i s of an a l l egat i on of s uch a vi ol at i on. 18 U . S. C . § 3565( c) . I n ot herw or ds , t he courtcannotr evoke pr obat i on aft ert he ter m o f p ro b a tio n h a s e x p ire d u n les s (1 ) th e d e lay i n re v o c a tio n w a s re a so n a b ly n e c e s s a ry a n d (2 ) a w a rr a n t o r s u m m o n s is s u e d b e fo re th e e x p ir a tio n d a te . N ei t hercondi t i on w as m ether e. I ti s undi s put ed thatt he amended pet i t i on for-4-

r evoca t i on w as fi l ed af t ert he pr obat i on t erm had expi r ed. A nd even i f the “amended” pe t i t i on i s deemed t o r el at e bac k t o the or i gi nal pet i t i on of A pr i l 5, 2 0 0 6 , w ith re sp e c t to th e a lco h o l-re late d a lleg a tio n , itw a s n o t “r e a so n a b ly n e c e s s a ry” to d e la yre v o c a tio n u n til a f te r e x p ir a tio n o f

th e te rm o f

p ro b a tio n . A l t hough M r . C r i s l erhad s oughta cont i nuance of the or i gi nal l ys chedul ed hear i ng, t he hea r i ng w as t hen conduc t ed on Sept ember5, 2006. T o be s ur e, the di s t r i ctcourt“aba t ed” the pet i t i on foran addi t i onal fi ve mont hs ; butthatper i od ended on February5, 2007, w i t hi n the pr obat i on t erm . T he r ecor d cont ai ns abs ol ut el yno r eas on w hyt he aba t ed r evoca t i on pr ocee di ng coul d nothave be en c o n d u c t e d b yt h e p r o b a t i o n - e x p i r a t i o n d a t e o f F e b ru a ry1 7 , 2 0 0 7 . As fo rth e two al l eged vi ol at i ons on February18, 2007, M r . C r i s l er ’ s pr obat i on had al r eady ended a dayear l i er . T he di s t r i ctcourthad neve rent er ed an or derext endi ng p r o b a t i o n b e y o n d t h e o r i g i n a l t h r e e - y e a rt e r m. A cc o rdin g ly , w e R E V E R S E the d istri ct co u rt ’s rev o ca ti o n o f M r. C ri sler’s pr obat i on and r emand w i t h i ns t ruct i ons t o end hi s s upervi s ed r el eas e forthw i th.