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

### F e b r u ary22,2007 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 os . 05- 1288 and 05- 1371 RU I AN DU, D e fe n d a n t-A p p e llan t.

_________________________ 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. 06- 1053 RA CH EL CH AV EZ,

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 COLORA DO ( D. C. NO. 0 4 - CR- 2 0 0 - P S F a n d NO. 0 4 - CR- 3 4 0 - W DM )
J ohn T . C ar l s on, R es ear ch and W r i t i ng A t t orney( W arr en R . W i l l i amson, A s s i s t antFeder al Publ i c D efe nder , w i th hi m on the br i efs ) O ffi ce of t he Feder al P ub l i c D efen der, D env er, C olor ado , for A pp el l ants . Pet erH . W al s h, A s s i s t antU ni t ed St at es A t t or ney( J erryN . J ones , A s s i s t ant U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , w i t h hi m on the cons ol i dat ed br i ef forC as e N um ber s 05- 1288 and 05- 1371, and on the br i ef for06- 1053) O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney , D enver , C ol or ado, forA ppel l ee.-2-

B efo re M UR P HY , AN DE RS ON , and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. TY M KOVI CH , C i r cui tJ udge.
T hi s cas e r equi r es us t o cons i dert he s cope of ourdeci s i on i n Uni t ed Stat es v. Sous er , 405 F. 3d 1162 ( 10t h C i r . 2005) , as appl i ed t o a new empl oym ent ver i fi cat i on pol i cyforfede r al pr obat i oner s es t abl i s hed byt he C ol or ado pr obat i on offi ce. I n Sous er , w e h eld th at an ea rl ier po li cyreq u ir ing p rob ati o n ers “ to info rm t hei rempl oy er s of thei rcr i m i nal hi s t oryunl es s t heycan c onvi nce thei rpr obat i on offi cerand the s ent enci ng j udge thatempl oy ernot i fi cat i on i s notnece s s ary ” w as an occ upat i onal r es t r i ct i on under§ 5F1. 5 of the U ni t ed St at es Sent enci ng G u id e lin e s (U S S G ). Id. at1167. B eca us e the pol i cyw as an occ upat i onal
r es t r i ct i on, t he pr obat i on offi ce c oul d notenfor ce the pol i cyw i thoutan i ndi vi dual i zed a s s es s m entof i t s need foreac h pr obat i oner . I n r es pons e t o our deci s i on i n Sous er , C ol or ado adopt ed a ne w pol i cy . T he new pol i cy
— w hi l e not
m andat i ng not i fi cat i on— r equi r es pr obat i on offi cer s t o ver i fyt he empl oym entof persons on probati on bycon t act i ng t heirem ploy ers . T w o pr obat i oner s , R ui an D u and R ache l C havez , i ndepende nt l ychal l enge t he em ploym ent ver i fi cat i on po l i cy , argui ng t hat i tviol at es So user becau se i tal so im p o se s a n o c c u p a tio n a l re stric tio n o n p ro b a tio n e rs u n d e r § 5 F 1 .5 . T h e ir
a rg u m e n ts w e re rejec ted b ytw o d iffe re n t d istric t co u rts, a n d d e fe n d a n ts’ tim e ly appea l s w er e cons ol i dat ed i n t hi s cas e.O ri g in a lly, C h a v e z w a s s u bje c te d to th e e m p lo y e r n o tific a tio n p o lic y . 1 S h e a lle g e s th is n o tific a tio n re s u lte d in th e lo s s o f o n e jo b a n d s e v e ra l jo b o ffe rs . S h e d id n o t n o tifyh e r c u rre n t em p lo y e r o f h e r c o n v ictio n a n d in fa c t ac tiv e ly conce al ed i ton herj ob appl i cat i on. -3- Ha v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r1 8 U. S . C. § 3 7 4 2 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 , we fi nd t hatan empl oym entver i fi cat i on pol i cydoes notcons t i tut e an oc cupat i onal
r e s t r i c t i o n u n d e rt h e fe d e r a l s e n t e n c i n g g u i d e l i n e s a n d th e r e fo r e A F F I R M. I . Backg r ound R ui an D u pl eade d gui l t yt o one countof des truct i on of m ai l bya U ni t ed S t at es Po st al S ervi ce em ploy ee i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U . S . C . § 1 70 3(a) . A s a condi t i on of hi s pr obat i on, t he di s tr i ctcourtr equi r ed hi m t o obt ai n l aw ful empl oym ent . H e compl i ed byacc ept i ng a j ob as a s chool bus dr i verfort he D o u g la s C o u n ty S c h o o l D is tr ic t. R a c h e l C h a v e z p lea d e d g u iltyto o n e c o u n t o f m a k in g fa lse sta tem e n ts to t he governm enti n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 1001. A s a condi t i on of herpr obat i on, t he di s t r i ctcour tr equi r ed hert o obt ai n l aw ful empl oym ent . She obt ai ned
em ploym ent as a dri ver for el derl yand han dicapped i nd i vidual s. 1 T h e p ro b a tio n o ffice ’s e m p lo ym e n t v e rifica tio n p o licya p p lied to b o th defe ndant s . T heyeac h s oughta s t ayof the appl i cat i on of the pol i cyi n di s tr i ct cour t . D u ar gued thati tcons t i tut ed an oc cupat i onal r es tr i ct i on i n vi ol at i on of Sous er . T he di s t r i ctcour thel d otherw i s e, fi ndi ng thatt he ver i fi cat i on pol i cy s ubs t ant i vel ydi ffe r ed fr om t he not i fi cat i on pol i cyati s s ue i n So user an d there fo re-4-

d id n o t co n stitu te a n o c c u p a tio n a l re stric tio n . A p ro b a tio n o ffice r su b se q u e n tly
c o n tac ted th e sc h o o l d istric t to v e rif yD u ’s e m p lo ym e n t. A d iffe re n t d istric t co u rt ju d g e a lso rejec ted C h a v e z ’s c h a llen g e fo r slig h tly d i ffe r e n tr e a s o n s , fi n d i n g t h a tt h e p o l i c yi s “ e n t i r e l yc o n s i s t e n t ” wi th US S G. § 5F1. 5, and thati tw oul d be detr i m ent al t o the s upervi s or yobl i gat i ons of the p r o b a t i o n o ffi c e t o p r e c l u d e mo n i t o r i n g o f p r o b a t i o n e r s ’ e mp l o yme n ts t a tu s . R. V ol . I I , at35. I I . D i s cus s i on F e d e ra l sta tu tes a n d th e se n ten c in g g u id e lin e s a llo w d istric t co u rts to es t abl i s h r eas onabl e condi t i ons as a partof pr obat i on ors upervi s ed r el eas e. For instan ce , 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 6 3 p rov ides a li tanyo f m an d atoryan d d iscreti o n ary con dit i on s, i ncludi ng : (1) m eet i ng fam i l ysupp ortand res t i tuti on ob l i gati on s, § 3 5 6 3 (b )(1 )– (2 ); (2 ) fin d in g su itab le e m p lo ym e n t an d p e rfo rm in g it
cons ci ent i ous l y , § 3563( b) ( 4) ; ( 3) r efr ai ni ng fr om vi s i t i ng undes i r abl e pl ace s or peopl e, § 3563( b) ( 6) ; ( 4) agr eei ng t o vi s i t s bypr obat i on offi cer s atanyt i m e or p lac e , § 3 5 6 3 (1 4 ); a n d (5 ) m o st re lev a n t to th e se a p p e a ls, a d h e rin g to

“ o c c u p a tio n a l re stric tio n s” b yre f ra in in g f

ro m c e rta in typ e s o f

e m p lo ym e n t, § 3 5 6 3 (b)(5 ). F e d e ra l p ro b a tio n o ffice rs, in tu rn , m o n ito r a p ro b a tio n e r’s c o m p lian c e w ith t h e t e r ms a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f p r o b a t i o n u n d e rt h e a u th o r i tyg r a n t e d i n 1 8 U. S . C. § 3603. T hats t atut e r equi r es pr obat i on offi cer s , among ot hert hi ngs , t o ( 1) keep-5-

abr eas tof a pr obat i oner ’ s l i vi ng and w or ki ng condi t i ons , ( 2) keep a r ecor d of a pr obat i oner ’ s w or k, and ( 3) r epor tper i odi cal l yt o the s ent enci ng courtthe p rob ati o n er’s co m p li an ce w ith the c o n d it ion s o f re lease . § 3 6 0 3 (2)– (3), ( 5 ), (7). T hes e var i ous s t atut or yr equi r ement s ar e i m pl ement ed ats ent enci ng t hr ough a var i etyof pr ovi s i ons i n t he G ui del i nes . C hapt er5B , forexampl e, c o v e rs p ro b a tio n c o n d iti o n s g e n e ra lly , an d in c lu d e s a p ro v isio n th a t ca n m a n d a te d is c lo s u re o f

a p ro b a tio n e r’ s c ri m in a l r e c o rd to th ir d p a rt ie s . § 5 B 1 .3 (c )( 1 3 ). C h ap ter 5F co v ers se n tenc ing o p ti o n s an d req u ir es sp ec ifi c find ing s b efo re i m pos i ng anyempl oym entcondi t i ons thatar e cons i der ed “oc cupat i onal restri cti o n s” u n d er § 3 5 6 3 (b)(5 ). A . C ondi t i ons on Em pl oym e nt O cc u p ati o n al restr ict ion s u n d er § 3 5 6 3 (b)(5 ) ca n restri ct a p rob ati o n er’s
e m p lo ym e n t in tw o w a y s : a c o u rt m a yre q u ir e th a t a p ro b a tio n e r ( 1 ) “ re f ra in . . . fr om engagi ng i n a s peci fi ed occ upat i on, bus i nes s , orpr ofes s i on bear i ng a r eas onabl ydi r ectr el at i ons hi p t o the conduc tcons t i tut i ng the offens e, ” or( 2) “enga ge i n s uch a s peci fi ed occ upat i on, bus i nes s , orpr ofes s i on onl yt o a s t at ed d e g re e o r u n d e r s ta te d c ir c u m s ta n c e s .” A c c o rd in g to th e G u id e lin e s, a n o c c u p a tio n a l re stric tio n is p e rm iss ib le in t he fo l l ow i ng ci rcum st ances: T he co urtm ayi m po se a con dit i on of p robat i on or supervi sed rel ease pr ohi bi t i ng t he defendantfr om engagi ng i n a s peci fi ed occ upat i on,-6-

bus i nes s , orpr ofes s i on, orl i m i t i ng the t erm s on w hi ch the defendantm ay d o so , o n lyif

it d e ter m in e s th a t: (1) a rea so n ab lyd ir ec t r elati o n sh ip ex ist ed b etw ee n the d efen d an t’ s occu pati on , bu si ness, or professi on and t he co nd uct r el evan tt o the offen se of convi ct i on; and ( 2) i m pos i t i on of s uch a r es tr i ct i on i s r eas onabl ynece s s aryt o pr ot ect t he publ i c bec aus e ther e i s r eas on t o bel i eve that , abs ents uch r es tr i ct i on, t he defendantw i l l cont i nue t o engage i n unl aw ful conducts i m i l art o that forw hi ch the defendantw as convi ct ed. § 5F1. 5. A n occupa t i onal r es t r i ct i on can ther ebys erve tw o purpos es . Fi r s t , i tcan fi r s tpr eventa pr obat i onerfr om t aki ng a ce r t ai n type of e m pl oym ent . For
e x a m p le , a s e x o ffe n d e r m a yn o t b e a llo w e d to w o rk a ro u n d c h ild re n . S e c o n d , a l es s err es t r i ct i on can l i m i tt he “t erm s ” of a pr obat i oner ’ s empl oym ent . For exampl e, a defendantconvi ct ed of f r aud maybe r es tr i ct ed fr om w or ki ng i n a pos i t i on handl i ng m oneyata bank orm aybe r equi r ed t o di s cus s w i th the
e m p l o ye rb a n k t h e d e t a i l s o f h i s c r i m i n a l h i s t o ry. T he ques t i on pr es ent ed i n So user r equi r ed us t o l ook att he s econd type of
re stric tio n , li m its o n th e ter m s o f a d e fe n d a n t’s e m p lo ym e n t. B . Souser I n Sous er , w e re v iew ed an em p loy er n o ti fica ti o n p o li cythat C o lorad o ’s pr obat i on offi ce ha d i nform al l yadopt ed i n i t s i nt ernal oper at i ons m anual . T he p o lic yin p la c e a t th e tim e re q u ir e d p ro b a tio n e rs , pr i ort o and as a condi t i on of-7-

acce pt i ng empl oym ent , t o not i fypot ent i al empl oy er s of thei rconvi ct i on, s upervi s i on s t atus , and anypr i orcr i m i nal hi s t oryr el evantt o thei rempl oym ent situ a tio n . T h e p o licya llo w e d p ro b a tio n e rs to b e e x c u se d f ro m th is d u tyo n lyif t heyw er e abl e t o demonstr at e har ds hi p ar i s i ng fr om not i fi cat i on. T he pr obat i on o ffice ju stified th e in fo rm a l p o licya s n e c e ss a ryto p ro v id e th ird p a rties w ith not i ce of

an empl oy ee’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yand anyr i s ks as s oci at ed w i th that h i s t o r y. T he defendantar gued thatthe empl oy ernot i fi cat i on pol i cyact ed as an o c c u p a tio n a l re stric tio n . W e a g re e d , co n c lu d in g : [p] ur s uantt o t he pl ai n l anguage of § 5F1. 5, an “oc cupat i onal r es t r i ct i on” i s a condi t i on of pr o bat i on thatei ther“pr ohi bi t [s ] the de fe n d a n t f

r o m e n g a g i n g i n a s p e c i fi e d o c c u p a t i o n , b u s i n e s s , or p r o fe s s io n , o r l im it[ s ] t h e te rm s o n w h ic h th e d e fe n d a n t m a yd o s o .” B e c a u se a n e m p lo y e r n o tific a tio n re q u ire m e n t l i mi ts th e t e r ms on w hi ch a defe ndant m ay engage i n the s peci fi ed occupa t i on, i tm u st be tr eat ed as an occ upat i onal r es t r i ct i on. Id. at 11 6 5 (i n terna l ci tat ion o m itted a n d em p h asis ad d ed ). W e fo u n d th a t re q u irin g p ro b a tio n e rs to a ffirm a tiv e lyd isc lo se th e ir
cr i m i nal r ecor d pr i ort o acc ept i ng empl oym ent“l i m i t s the t erm s ” on w hi ch a pr obat i onerm ays eek e m pl oym ent . I n otherw or ds , i tpl ace d an obl i gat i on on t he pr obat i oner s t o acc eptempl oym entonl yon condi t i on of m andat ed di s cl os ur e of
s peci fi c and de t ai l ed i nform at i on aboutthei rcr i m i nal hi s t ory . Si nce the not i fi cat i on pol i cyi m pl i cat ed the l i t er al t erm s of § 5F1. 5, w e r equi r edA tl eas tone ci r cui thas concl uded thatnot i fi cat i on pol i ci es ar e not 2 o c c u p a tio n a l r e s tr ic tio n s . Uni t ed Stat es v. R i t t er , 1 1 8 F . 3 d 5 0 2 , 5 0 4 n . 2 (6th C ir . 1997) . O t herci r cui t s , how ever , have c oncl uded thatnot i fi cat i on pol i ci es m ay c o n s titu te a n o c c u p a tio n a l r e s tr ic tio n . Se e , e.g ., Un itedS ta tes v . B ritt , 332 F. 3d 1 2 2 9 , 1 2 3 2 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 3 ) (fin d in g th a t “it is c lea r th a t w h e n a d e fe n d a n t is r equi r ed t o not i fyhi s cl i ent s of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t ory , he i s bei ng s ubj ect ed t o an o c c u p a tio n a l re stric tio n th a t m u st m e e t th e re q u ire m e n ts o f § 5 F 1 .5 ” ); Uni t ed Stat es v. P et ers on , 248 F. 3d 79, 85–86 ( 2d C i r . 2001) ( tr eat i ng condi t i on that r equi r ed defendantt o r eportconvi ct i on t o hi s empl oy eras an occ upat i onal re stric tio n ); Uni t ed Stat es v. D oe , 7 9 F . 3 d 1 3 0 9 , 1 3 2 2 (2d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (sam e). -8- i ndi vi dual i zed f

i ndi ngs on a ca s e- by
- cas e bas i s befor e the condi t i on coul d be i m pos ed. 2 C . E m pl oy m ent V eri fi cat i on P ol i cy I n r es pons e t o ourdeci s i on i n Sous er , C ol or ado cha nged i t s empl oym ent not i fi cat i on pol i cyi n M ay2005. T he pr obat i on offi ce a dopt ed w hati tcal l ed an “empl oym entver i fi cat i on pol i cy . ” The new pol i cyw as s ubs equent l yappr oved by C olor ado ’s fede ral dis t ri ctj ud ges. U n d e r th e n e w p o licy , p ro b a tio n o ffice rs n o lo n g e r re q u ire p ro b a tio n e rs to aff i r m at i vel ycont actempl oy er s and di s cl os e thei rcr i m i nal s t atus as a condi t i on o f a n d p rio r to e m p lo ym e n t. P ro b a tio n o ffice rs a re in ste a d d ire c ted to “ p e rso n a lly
ver i fyt he empl oym entof per s ons on pr obat i on ors upervi s ed r el eas e. ” A ppel l ee A ns w erB r . A t t ach. 1 at1. T he pol i cyw as i nt ended t o corr ectt he fl aw s i n the not i fi cat i on pol i cyi dent i fi ed i n Sous er . A c c o rd in g to th e p o lic ys ta te m e n t, T he s i gni fi cantdi ffe r ence betw een thi s new pol i cyand the pr evi ous pol i cy is th a t th e d e fe n d a n t is n o t r e qui r e d to n o tifyth e e m p lo y e r a b o u t th e ir s upervi s i on s t atus . R ather , t he off i cer , cons i s t entw i th s t atut or ydut i es out l i ned i n 18 U . S. C . § 3603, i s r equi r ed t o ver i fyempl oym enti nform at i on-9-

aboutdut i es , r es pons i bi l i t i es , compensa t i on, and otherempl oym ent in fo rm a tio n re le v a n t to s u p e rv is io n . Id. at 1 (e m p h asis in o ri g inal). A s fu rth er su p p o rtfo r th e n ew p o li cy , the fo ll o w ing ex p lana ti o n s w ere i n c l u d e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h i tf r o m t h e p r i o rn o t i fi c a t i o n p o l i c y: ( 1) V er i fi cat i on i s cons i s t entw i th the dut i es of pr obat i on offi cer s as o u tli n e d in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 6 0 3 (2 ); ( 2) Per s onal ver i fi cat i on of empl oym entbyoffi cer s ens ur es thatthe defe ndanti s actual l yempl oy ed i n the capaci tyhe/ s he r eport s and al l ow s t he off

i cert o confi r m w hetheranythi r d- partyr i s ks exi s tthat m a yre q u ire e m p lo ym e n t re stric tio n s; ( 3) Per s onal cont actw i t h empl oy er s t o ver i fyempl oym entenabl es offi cer s t o bui l d r el at i ons hi ps w i th empl oy er s w hi ch s uppor tthe o ffice r’s a b ili tyto a ss e ss a n o ffe n d e r’s p ro g re ss u n d e r su p e rv isio n ; ( 4) Per s onal ver i fi cat i on of an e m pl oym ents i tuat i on enhanc es the o ffice r’s a b ili tyto m a k e in fo rm e d d e c isio n s a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n s to t he courtr egar di ng empl oym entr el at ed tr avel , funds avai l abl e for r es t i tut i on, and pot ent i al t hi r d- partyr i s k i s s ues ; and (5) E stab li sh ing o p en co n tact w ith em p loy ers a v o ids the aw k w ard s i tuat i on of off

i cer s t r y i ng t o conce al thei rtrue i dent i t i es . . . w hen t r y i ng t o cont actan offenderata j ob s i t e. Id. at1–2. A ccor di ng t o pr obat i on offi cer s w ho t es t i fi ed abouti t s s cope a nd appl i cat i on i n t he s t aypr ocee di ngs bel ow , the new pol i cyi s i m por t antfors ever al
re a so n s re late d to th e ir su p e rv iso ryre sp o n sib ili ties . F irst, ita llo w s o ffice rs to confi r m t hatpr obat i oner s on hom e det ent i on ar e att endi ng thei rj obs orw or ki ng fu ll -t im e. S ec o n d , itall o w s o fficers to c o n firm that p rob ati o n ers a re-10-

cons ci ent i ous and har d- w or ki ng i n thei rempl oym ent . T hi r d, offi cer s can i nves t i gat e the dut i es and r es pons i bi l i t i es of empl oym entt o det erm i ne w hether
m or e r es t r i ct i ve condi t i ons ar e nec es s ary . I n appl y i ng the pol i cy , pr obat i on o fficers d o n o t vo lun teer info rm ati o n to the em p loy er a b o u t th e p rob ati o n er’s offe ns e orcr i m i nal hi s t or y . T heyw i l l , how ever , di s cl os e publ i c i nform at i on aboutt he pr obat i oneri f as ked. A pol i cyal l ow i ng s el f- r eport i ng of w or k s t atus bythe pr obat i onerw as deemed i nadequa t e gi ven the numberof pr obat i oner s thatm us tbe moni t or ed and t he ea s e of fabr i cat i ng orm i s r eport i ng w or k hi s t oryand per form ance . A ccor di ng to the test im o n yb elow , em p loy ers ro u ti n elyh av e b ee n co n tacted fo r m an yy ea rs as a partof p robat i on services , and few probati on ers hav e l osttheirj ob s as a r es ul t . T he w i t nes s es es t i m at ed thatfew erthan one pe r centof pr obat i oner s have l os tj obs as a r es ul tof empl oy ercont act s and thatpr obat i oner s m ai nt ai n a hi gh 95% empl oym entr at e as a rul e. I n s um , t he new ver i fi cat i on pol i cydi ffe r s i n s i gni fi cantw ay s fr om the pr i ornot i fi cat i on pol i cy : ( 1) i tdoes notr equi r e the pr obat i on offi cert o i nform t he empl oy erof the empl oy ee’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or y ; ( 2) i tpl ace s no bur den on the p rob ati o n er to info rm an em p loy er a b o u t a co n v ict ion ; and (3) itd o es n o t r eq u ir e anydut i es of ei t hert he pr obat i on offi ce orthe pr obat i onerbefor e the pr obat i oner a c c e p ts e m p lo ym e n t.T h e e m p lo y e r n o tific a tio n p o licye n taile d a c tiv e d isc lo su re o f n o t o n ly 3 t he pr obat i oner ’ s publ i c r ecor d of convi ct i on, butal s o anyotherper s onal i nform at i on t hatt he pr obat i on offi cercoul d ar guabl ycons true as pl aci ng the empl oy eratr i s k. U ndert he new empl oym entver i fi cat i on pol i cy , i n contr as t , t he pr obat i on offi cercont act s t he empl oy eronl yaft ert he pr obat i onerhas obt ai ned e m p lo ym e n t an d o n lyfo r th e p u rp o se o f jo b v e rifica tio n . T h e p ro b a tio n o ffice r is (continued...) -11- D . A ppl i cat i on of

Souser T he i s s ue i s w hethert hi s new ver i fi cat i on pol i cycons t i tut es an occupa t i onal r es t r i ct i on l i ke the one w e r evi ew ed i n Sous er . W e c o n c lu d e th a t it d o e s n o t. T h e d i s t i n c t i o n s b e t we e n t h e t wo p o l i c i e s ma k e a d i ffe r e n c e i n t wo im p o rt a n t r e s p e c ts . F ir s t, th e b u rd e n s o n p ro b a tio n e rs a re e n tir e ly d iffe re n t. U ndert he pr i ornot i fi cat i on pol i cy , t he pr obat i onerhad a pr e- empl oym ent o b lig a tio n to in fo rm p o ten tial e m p lo y e rs a b o u t h is o r h e r c rim in a l h isto ry . In th is
sen se, em p loy er n o ti fica ti o n co n d it ion s the p rob ati o n er’s em p loym en t— b efo re begi nni ng any j ob, a pr obat i onerhad t o aff i r m at i vel ynot i fya pot ent i al empl oy er of hi s cr i m i nal hi s t or y , i ncl udi ng det ai l s of “r i s ks t hatm aybe occ as i oned byt he defe ndant ’ s cr i m i nal r ecor d orper s onal hi s t oryorchar act er i s t i cs . ” Sous er , 405 F. 3d at1163–64. A nd i f the pr obat i onerfai l ed t o gi ve the r equi s i t e not i ce, t he p o licyre q u ire d th e p ro b a tio n o ffice r to n o tifyth e e m p lo y e r. T h u s, u n d e r th is po l i cya proba t i on er coul d n ot acceptanyw ork w i tho ut the requ i si t e dis cl osures, and the di s cl os ur es m i ghti ncl ude i nform at i on farafi el d fr om t he offens e of convi ct i on. 3(...continued) 3 di s cr eet : he does notnece s s ar i l yi nform the empl oy erthathe i s a pr obat i on o ffice r a n d w ill d isc lo se th e p ro b a tio n e r’s p u b lic re c o rd o f c o n v ictio n o n lyif a sk e d . O f

c o u rse , p ro b a tio n e rs m a yc h o o se to n o tifyth e e m p lo y e r o f th e ir cr i m i nal s t atus befor e s uch ver i fi cat i on occur s . B uttheyar e notr equi r ed t o do s o. I n s um , i ti s s i m pl yi r r el evantunderthe ver i fi cat i on pol i cyw hetherthe em p loy er k n o w s o f th e p rob ati o n er’s crim inal h ist o ry , as th e p rob ati o n er’s empl oym enti s notcondi t i oned on not i fi cat i on. -12- I n contr as t , t he ver i fi cat i on pol i cydoes notr equi r e the pr obat i onert o do
a n yth in g a s a c o n d iti o n o f e m p lo ym e n t. In ste a d , itre q u ire s p ro b a tio n o ffice rs to ver i fya pr obat i oner ’ s empl oym ents t atus , w i th no aff i r m at i ve obl i gat i on on t he pr obat i oner . N ori s a pr obat i onerpenal i zed i f a pr obat i on offi cerfai l s t o ver i fy h is e m p lo ym e n t. T h e p o licyp lac e s n o o b lig a tio n o n th e p ro b a tio n o ffice r to pr ovi de i nform at i on abouta pr obat i oner ’ s cr i m e orcr i m i nal hi s t ory . I n fac t , the pr obat i onercan c ont i nue hi s empl oym entr egar dl es s of w hethera pr obat i on o ffice r e n fo rc e s th e v e rifica tio n p o licy . T h e n e w p o licy , in s h o rt, d o e s n o t li m it t he t erm s of empl oym entundert he pl ai n m eani ng of § 5F1. 5. S ec o n d , the g o als u n d erly ing the n o ti fica ti o n an d v erificati o n p o li cies a re ent i r el ydi ffe r ent . T he not i fi cat i on pol i cyati s s ue i n So user m an d ated d iscl o su re of a pr obat i oner ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or yt o an empl oy er . T he appa r entgoal of the pol i cyw as t o r educe empl oy er s ’ and thi r d par t i es ’ r i s ks byens ur i ng thatthe empl oy erknew of a pot ent i al empl oy ee’ s cr i m i nal backgr ound pr i ort o hi r i ng t he empl oy ee.D u an d C hav ez argue thatt he p robat i on offi cers can co m plyw i th these 4 m a n d a te s in a le s s in tru s iv e m a n n e r, s u c h a s o b ta in in g a p ro b a tio n e r’ s p a ys tu b s . W hi l e perhaps t he ver i fi cat i on pol i cycoul d be modi fi ed i n m anyw ay s , t he G ui del i nes do notr equi r e court s t o s upervi s e the det ai l s of a pol i cyt hatdoes not im p o se a n o c c u p a tio n a l re stric tio n . S u ffice it t o sa y , the re c o rd su g g e sts th a t a pays tub orot herm ethods of ver i fi cat i on w oul d be i ns uffi ci entt o i nform t he offi ceri f a pr obat i onercons i s t ent l yarr i ves t o w or k on t i m e, i s cons i der ed a good em p loy ee , asso ciates w ith o ther felon s, o r ap p ea rs en g ag ed in h is w o rk— the v ery typ e o f in fo rm ati o n w h ich a ll o w s a p rob ati o n o fficer to a sses s a p rob ati o n er’s pr ogr es s . N ordoes a pays tub al l ow an off i cert o bui l d a r el at i ons hi p w i th an e m p lo y e r, t h e re b ye n a b lin g th e o ffic e r t o p ro m o te th e p ro b a tio n e r’ s b e s t in te re s ts . N evert hel es s , t he court s ar e nei t herequi pped fornori n the bus i nes s of m aki ng (continued...) -13- T he goal of the ver i fi cat i on pol i cyi s br oaderand i s notfocus ed on the empl oy er ’ s know l edge. T he ver i fi cat i on pol i cyi ns t ead i m pl ement s the pr obat i on o ffic e r’ s s ta tu to ry d u ty to m o n ito r a p ro b a tio n e r’ s p ro g re s s to w a rd re h a b ilita tio n . See 18 U . S. C . § 3603( 2) ( r equi r i ng a pr obat i on offi cert o “kee p i nform ed, t o the degr ee r equi r ed byt he condi t i ons s peci fi ed bythe s ent enci ng court , as t o the conductand condi t i on of a pr obat i oner. . . and r eporthi s conductand condi t i on to th e se n ten c in g c o u rt” ); id
. § 3 6 0 3 (3 ) (re q u irin g a p ro b a tio n o ffice r to “ u se a ll
su itab le m e th o d s . . . to a id a p ro b a tio n e r. . . a n d to b rin g a b o u t im p ro v e m e n ts in h is c o n d u c t an d c o n d iti o n ” ); id
. § 3603( 4) ( r equi r i ng a pr obat i on offi cert o “be
re sp o n sib le fo r th e su p e rv isio n o f a n yp ro b a tio n e r” ); id
. 3603( 5) ( r equi r i ng a pr obat i on offi cert o “kee p a r ecor d of [the pr obat i oner ’ s ] w or k”) . T he
r ehabi l i t at i ve goal s of pr obat i on depend on r el i abl e i nform at i on aboutthe p ro b a tio n e r’s life a n d c o n d u c t th a t m a yo n lyb e o b tain e d b yp e rso n a l co n tac t w ith
a pr obat i oner ’ s empl oy er . T hus , t he ver i fi cat i on pol i cyfur ther s i m por t ant 4(...continued) 4 th e d a ily , fa c tu a lly -in ten siv e d e c isio n s o f th e p ro b a tio n o ffice r, an d w e d e c lin e to m i cr o- m anage t he pr obat i on offi ce’ s appl i cat i on of pol i ci es thatdo notl i m i tthe ter m s o f e m p lo ym e n t. -14- sta tu to ryo b lig a tio n s, a n d , as w e h a v e n o ted , itd o e s n o t co n flict w ith th e p lain
m eani ng of § 5F1. 5. W e a lso n o te th a t So user fo c u se d o n re q u ire d d isc lo su re s a n d d id n o t b a r a ll cont actbetw een a n empl oy erand a pr obat i on offi cer . O f cour s e, the ver i fi cat i on p o li cym ayinev it ab lyresu ltin so m e e m p loy ers find ing o u t abo u t an e m p loy ee ’s
cr i m i nal hi s t or y . B utnonethel es s w e ca nnotcons true eve rypol i cythathas the pot ent i al fornot i fi cat i on as an occ upat i onal r es tr i ct i on. A s a mat t erof fa ct , m any j ob appl i cant s ar e al r eadyr out i nel yas ked aboutthei rcr i m i nal s t atus w hen appl y i ng forj obs , s o atw or s ta ver i fi cat i on pol i cydi s cl os es nothi ng m or e than
w h a t th e e m p lo y e r a lr e a d yk n o w s a b o u t a n e m p lo y e e . M o re o v e r, r e a d in g § 5 F 1 .5
so b roa d lyas to ap p lyto an yco n tacts be tw ee n p rob ati o n o fficers an d em p loy ers t hatm i ghtr es ul ti n di s cl os ur e of i nform at i on aboutan i ndi vi dual ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t or ycoul d undul yr es t r i ctt he us e of othercomm on and es s ent i al condi t i ons of pr obat i on. Forexampl e, pr obat i on oft en i ncl udes garni s hm entof w ages for
r es t i tut i on orw or kpl ace vi s i t s bya pr obat i on offi cer , both of w hi ch coul d not i fy
a n e m p lo y e r o f

a p ro b a tio n e r’ s s ta tu s . T a k e n to its e x tr e m e , any cont actw i th an empl oy erm i ghtl ead t o “not i fi cat i on” of a pr obat i oner ’ s cr i m i nal hi s t ory . Sect i on 5F1. 5 does notext end s o far . A nd i n anyevent , w e pr es um e and e xpectthat-15-

u n d e r th e v e rifica tio n p o licy , a p ro b a tio n o ffice r w ill e x e rc ise re a so n a b le d iscreti o n in d eterm ining w h ethe r pe rson al co n tact w ith an em p loy er is ne ce ssary i n a p art i cularcase t o carryou this st atutorydu t i es. D u and C havez ar gue thatthe di ffe r ence s i n pol i ci es ar e tr i vi al . T heyar gue th e p ro b lem w ith th e e m p lo ym e n t n o tific a tio n p o licyis n o t th a t em p lo ym e n t is condi t i oned on not i fi cat i on, butthatnot i fi cat i on occur s atal l , and thi s obj ect i on ap p li es e q u all yto the v erificati o n p o li cy . T h eyclaim ad v erse co n seq u en ce s are l i kel yt o fl ow fr om ver i fi cat i on, i ncl udi ng t erm i nat i on, i ncr eas ed moni t or i ng by th e e m p lo y e r, o r d is c lo s u re o f a p ro b a tio n e r’ s c ri m in a l s ta tu s to th e irp e e rs . B utt he not i fi cat i on pol i cyi n So user w as notan occ upat i onal r es tr i ct i on m er el ybecaus e of pos s i bl e adve r s e cons equenc es . I tw as an occ upat i onal
r es t r i ct i on beca us e not i fi cat i on w as r equi r ed as a condi t i on of empl oym ent . T he
ver i fi cat i on pol i cy , how ever , pl ace s no pr econdi t i onal t erm s of empl oym enton th e p ro b a tio n e r. A p ro b a tio n e r m a ya c c e p t an yfo rm o f e m p lo ym e n t, en g a g e in
a n ytas k re q u ire d b yth is e m p lo ym e n t, an d n e e d n o t d isc lo se a n yth in g to h is
em p loy er a s a re su lto f th e v erificati o n p o li cy . N o r do es th e p o li cyreq u ir e e m p lo y e rs to b e to ld in fo rm a tio n a b o u t a p ro b a tio n e r’s c rim in a l h isto ry . It o n ly requi res t hat the p robat i on offi cer confirm the fa ctof em ploym ent, no tdis cl ose t he d et ai l s of t he p robat i on er’ s offen ses. Fi nal l y , w e not e th e r ecor d devel oped befor e the di s tr i ctcourts ugges t s t hat
a d v e r s e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f n o t i fi c a t i o n a n d v e r i fi c a t i o n a r e e x a g g e r a t e d . O n l y a-16-

s m al l per cent age of

pr obat i oner s actual l yl os tw or k as a r es ul tof empl oy er cont act s t hatpr obat i on offi cer s r out i nel ym ade pr i ort o adopt i on of the
ver i fi cat i on pol i cy . W e al s o not e thatpr obat i oner s w ho obj ectt o empl oym ent veri fi cat i on are ent i t l ed to seek exclusi on from the p oli cyon a case-by -cas e basi s. I n s um , t he empl oym entver i fi cat i on pol i cydoes notpl ace any“l i m i t [s ] on the term s” o f e m p loym en t, § 5 F 1 . 5 , o r req u ir e a p rob ati o n er to “ en g ag e in [ ] a
s peci fi ed occ upat i on, bus i nes s , orpr ofes s i on onl yt o a s t at ed degr ee orunder
s t at ed ci r cumst ance s . ” 18 U . S. C . § 3563( b) ( 5) . A ccor di ngl y , i ti s notan occupa t i onal r es t r i ct i on r equi r i ng i ndi vi dual i zed orcas e- by
- cas e i m pl ement at i on. I I I . C oncl usi on F o rt h e r e a s o n s d i s c u s s e d a b o v e , we AFF I RM .