U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5
Occupational Restrictions
(a) The court may impose a condition of probation or supervised release prohibiting the defendant from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession, or limiting the terms on which the defendant may do so, only if it determines that:
(1) a reasonably direct relationship existed between the defendant's occupation, business, or profession and the conduct relevant to the offense of conviction; and
(2) imposition of such a restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the public because there is reason to believe that, absent such restriction, the defendant will continue to engage in unlawful conduct similar to that for which the defendant was convicted.
(b) If the court decides to impose a condition of probation or supervised release restricting a defendant's engagement in a specified occupation, business, or profession, the court shall impose the condition for the minimum time and to the minimum extent necessary to protect the public.
Commentary
Background: The Comprehensive Crime Control Act authorizes the imposition of occupational restrictions as a condition of probation, 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), or supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d). Pursuant to § 3563(b)(5), a court may require a defendant to:[R]efrain, in the case of an individual, from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances.
Section 3583(d) incorporates this section by reference. The Senate Judiciary Committee Report on the Comprehensive Crime Control Act explains that the provision was "intended to be used to preclude the continuation or repetition of illegal activities while avoiding a bar from employment that exceeds that needed to achieve that result." S. Rep. No. 225, 98th Cong., 1st Sess. 96–97. The condition "should only be used as reasonably necessary to protect the public. It should not be used as a means of punishing the convicted person." Id. at 96. Section 5F1.5 accordingly limits the use of the condition and, if imposed, limits its scope, to the minimum reasonably necessary to protect the public.
The appellate review provisions permit a defendant to challenge the imposition of a probation condition under 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5) if the sentence includes a more limiting condition of probation or supervised release than the maximum established in the guideline. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(3). The government may appeal if the sentence includes a less limiting condition of probation than the minimum established in the guideline. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)(3).
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendments 285 and 302); November 1, 1991 (amendment 428); November 1, 2002 (amendment 646).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 116
cases (14 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: United States v. Wittig, 528 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2008).
United States v. Wittig, 528 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2008). “§§ 3583 (d) and 3563(b) and USSG § 5F1.5. Section 3583(d) provides in pertinent part: The court may order, as a further condition of supervised release, to the extent that such condition (1) is reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),…”
United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5. We have previously indicated that a “specified occupation” as used in § 5F1.”
United States v. Jose Miguel Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058 (11th Cir. 2021). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5. An occupational restriction may be imposed only if the district court determines that (1) there is “a reasonably direct relationship” between the defendant’s occupation and the conduct relevant to the offense of conviction, and (2) that the restriction “is…”
United States v. Larry Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3563 (b)(5).”
United States v. Rodebaugh, 798 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2015). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5 cmt. background (alteration omitted) (quoting 18 U.”
United States v. Souser, 405 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2005). “As this reference makes clear, U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5 prescribes the conditions under which an occupational restriction may be imposed.”
United States v. Hull, 893 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2018). “He argues a district court may not require him to notify an employer about his criminal history as a condition of supervised release unless the court first makes the findings required by USSG § 5F1.5. We conclude Standard Condition Twelve is not an occupational restriction.”
United States v. Chance Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003). “U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a) authorizes a sentencing court to impose occupational restrictions only if it first determines (1) there is a reasonably direct relationship between the defendant’s occupation and the offense conduct, and (2) imposition of such a restriction is reasonably…”
United States v. Paul Hamilton, Jr., 986 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2021). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a). The Guidelines further stipulate that if the court imposes such an occupational restriction, it “shall impose the condition for the minimum time and to the minimum extent necessary to protect the public.”
United States v. Pabon, Jr., 819 F.3d 26 (1st Cir. 2016). “§ 3563 (b)(5) and U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5, and that the polygraph test condition is inherently unreliable and violates the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.”
United States v. Daniels, 541 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2008). “In interpreting U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5, which requires heightened scrutiny of certain occupational restrictions, we held “that the provision applies only to restrictions on the specific occupation or occupations held by the defendant prior to conviction.”
United States v. Velez-Luciano, 814 F.3d 553 (1st Cir. 2016). “First, he incorrectly argues that Conditions 6-9 are occupational restrictions, subject to the more-stringent U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5 standard. 11 These conditions, except for part of Condition 8, do not bar him from any particular occupation at all — they simply pertain to his…”
— U.S.S.G. §5F1.5(2) — 1 case
United States v. Cheryll Coon (8th Cir. 1999).
— U.S.S.G. §5F1.5(a) — 43 cases
United States v. Paul Hamilton, Jr., 986 F.3d 413 (4th Cir. 2021). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a). The Guidelines further stipulate that if the court imposes such an occupational restriction, it “shall impose the condition for the minimum time and to the minimum extent necessary to protect the public.”
United States v. Hull, 893 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 2018). “He argues a district court may not require him to notify an employer about his criminal history as a condition of supervised release unless the court first makes the findings required by USSG § 5F1.5. We conclude Standard Condition Twelve is not an occupational restriction.”
United States v. Chance Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003). “U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a) authorizes a sentencing court to impose occupational restrictions only if it first determines (1) there is a reasonably direct relationship between the defendant’s occupation and the offense conduct, and (2) imposition of such a restriction is reasonably…”
United States v. Jose Miguel Cordero, 7 F.4th 1058 (11th Cir. 2021). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5. An occupational restriction may be imposed only if the district court determines that (1) there is “a reasonably direct relationship” between the defendant’s occupation and the conduct relevant to the offense of conviction, and (2) that the restriction “is…”
United States v. Peppe, 80 F.3d 19 (1st Cir. 1996).
— U.S.S.G. §5F1.5(a)(1) — 10 cases
United States v. Cabral, 926 F.3d 687 (10th Cir. 2019).
United States v. Mike, 632 F.3d 686 (10th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Wittig, 528 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2008). “§§ 3583 (d) and 3563(b) and USSG § 5F1.5. Section 3583(d) provides in pertinent part: The court may order, as a further condition of supervised release, to the extent that such condition (1) is reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),…”
United States v. Von Behren, 65 F. Supp. 3d 1140 (D. Colo. 2014).
United States v. Williams (10th Cir. 2018).
— U.S.S.G. §5F1.5(a)(2) — 17 cases
United States v. Wittig, 528 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2008). “§§ 3583 (d) and 3563(b) and USSG § 5F1.5. Section 3583(d) provides in pertinent part: The court may order, as a further condition of supervised release, to the extent that such condition (1) is reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),…”
United States v. Larry Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3563 (b)(5).”
United States v. Bruce Cutler, 58 F.3d 825 (2d Cir. 1995).
United States v. Frankie Otis Erwin, 299 F.3d 1230 (10th Cir. 2002).
United States v. Souser, 405 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2005). “As this reference makes clear, U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5 prescribes the conditions under which an occupational restriction may be imposed.”
— U.S.S.G. §5F1.5(a)(l) — 11 cases
United States v. Stoterau, 524 F.3d 988 (9th Cir. 2008). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5. We have previously indicated that a “specified occupation” as used in § 5F1.”
United States v. Larry Peterson, 248 F.3d 79 (2d Cir. 2001). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5; see also 18 U.S.C. § 3563 (b)(5).”
United States v. Souser, 405 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2005). “As this reference makes clear, U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5 prescribes the conditions under which an occupational restriction may be imposed.”
United States v. Stepp, 680 F.3d 651 (6th Cir. 2012).
United States v. Love, 593 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2010).
— U.S.S.G. §5F1.5(b) — 17 cases
United States v. Wittig, 528 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 2008). “§§ 3583 (d) and 3563(b) and USSG § 5F1.5. Section 3583(d) provides in pertinent part: The court may order, as a further condition of supervised release, to the extent that such condition (1) is reasonably related to the factors set forth in section 3553(a)(1), (a)(2)(B),…”
United States v. Chance Rearden, 349 F.3d 608 (9th Cir. 2003). “U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a) authorizes a sentencing court to impose occupational restrictions only if it first determines (1) there is a reasonably direct relationship between the defendant’s occupation and the offense conduct, and (2) imposition of such a restriction is reasonably…”
United States v. Daniel Voelker, 489 F.3d 139 (3rd Cir. 2007).
United States v. Rodebaugh, 798 F.3d 1281 (10th Cir. 2015). “” U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5 cmt. background (alteration omitted) (quoting 18 U.”
United States v. Carter, 652 F.3d 894 (8th Cir. 2011).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.