Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30811 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. BRYAN C M CC ANN D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 08- c r - 0034- D D D - JD K - 1 B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * B ryan C . M cC an n app eal s a c on di t i o n o f pr o ba t i o n thatw asi m posedun der 18 U . S . C . § 3563 af t er he pl ea d e d gu i l t y t o t ak i n g over t h e l i m i tof du cks, vi ol at i ng non- t oxi cs hotr equi r em ent s, and hun t i ng m i gr at or y bir ds w i th an unpl ugg e d g un i n v i o l at i o n o f 1 6 U . S. C. § 703 . M c Cann’ s a r gum e ntt hatt he hun t i ng r es tri cti on t hatw as i m pos ed as a c ondi t i on o f hi s pro bat i on i s an o c c upa t i o nalr e s t r i c t i o n t hat r uns af o ul o f U . S. S. G . § 5F1 . 5 i s una va i l i ng. The United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 25, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 30811

2 Sent enc i ng G ui del i nes do notappl y t o m i sde m eanorc onvi c ti on s suc h as M c C a n n ’ s . S ee§ 1 B 1 .9 . M cC an n ’ s argu m en t t h at t h e h u n t i n g rest ri ct i on i s a great er deprivati on of l iber t y t han i s r eas onably n ec es sa r y t o m ee tt he purpo se s of 18 U . S. C . § 3553 i s li kew i se un ava i l i n g. T h e n u m ber of du cks att ribu t ed t o M cC an n i n conn ect i on w i t h the i n st an tcon vi ct i on w as d ou bl e the da i ly bagli m i t . T h e of fen se oc curred o n M c Cann’ s pr o pe r t y. M c Cann’ s c r i m i nalhi s t o r y i n c l ude d o t he rhunt i ng vi ol ati on s. T h u s, t h e hu n t i n g rest ri ct i on sat i sf i ed those § 3553 ( a) fact ors di r e c t e d a tde t e r r e nc e , t he na t ur e a nd c i r c um st an ces o f t he o f fe ns e , a nd M c C a n n ’ s h is to r ya n dch a r a c te r is tic s . S ee§ 3 5 6 3 (b ). M oreover, t h e hu n t i n g rest ri ct i on does not dep rive M cC an n of l ibert y or property beyon d w h at i s r eason ably necessary t o m eett h e pu rposes of § 355 3( a) ( 2) . M cC an n i s not rest ri cte d fr om bei n g on hi s farm f or purp oses u n rel ated t o hu n t i n g w h en hu n t in g i s not occurri n g; nor i s he precl u ded f rom m an aging or s u pervi si n g act ivi t i es on h i s propert y t h rough an agen tw h en h u n t i n g i s oc curri n g. G iven t h at M cC an n com m i t t ed the h u n t i n g vi ol ati on s on property he ow n s, t h e hu n t i n g rest ri ct i on as a condit i on of h i s proba t i on w as not a n a b u s e o f d is c r e tio n . S ee Uni t e d St at e s v . Cot hr an , 3 02 F . 3d2 79, 2 90 (5t h C i r. 2 0 0 2 ); Un itedS ta tes v. Mer ritt , 6 3 9 F .2d 2 5 4 , 2 5 6 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 1 ). AF F I RMED.