Opinion ID: 2708522
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Special Condition 5 (The Self-Employment Ban)

Text: There is additional statutory authority that applies in the case of the self-employment ban. The statutory provision providing a partial list of discretionary conditions, 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5), states that a defendant can be ordered to “reNo. 13-3373 11 frain . . . from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense, or to engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under stated circumstances.” The sentencing guidelines implementing this condition provide that “[o]ccupational restrictions may be imposed as a condition of supervised release,” U.S.S.G. § 5D1.3(e)(4), and that such a restriction may be imposed by a court only if it determines that: (1) a reasonably direct relationship ex- isted between the defendant’s occupa- tion, business, or profession and the conduct relevant to the offense of con- viction; and (2) imposition of such a restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the pub- lic because there is reason to believe that, absent such restriction, the defend- ant will continue to engage in unlawful conduct similar to that for which the de- fendant was convicted. U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a). In other words, the statutory provision and sentencing guidelines make clear that an occupation restriction requires a nexus between the underlying offense of conviction and the occupational ban. All three clauses are consistent in requiring the connection between the conduct constituting the offense and the occupation being restricted. The district court gave some brief explanation for the self-employment ban, first raising its own concern about 12 No. 13-3373 Farmer’s spotty employment and tax payment history, and then adopting the government’s suggestion of a selfemployment ban, raised for the first time at the hearing. See Transcript of Plea and Sentencing and Competency Hearing, United States v. Farmer, No. 4:12-cr-00026 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 14, 2013), ECF No. 84, 54–55 (discussing Farmer’s selfemployment over the past ten years), 57–59 (discussing with the parties, then imposing, a prohibition on selfemployment, on the basis that Farmer “hasn’t paid anything into Social Security other than $1,200” and that the requirement that he “start working and get[] a paycheck and pay[] taxes and become a good citizen” may rid Farmer of “that temptation to con people”). However, the district court’s explanation did not provide the necessary nexus between Farmer’s underlying crime—attempted extortion—and the self-employment ban. The district court did not determine that Farmer’s activities as a self-employed entrepreneur caused him to attempt to extort Walter Allen. The court’s explanation focused instead on its belief that Farmer’s lack of success as an entrepreneur was causing him to turn to con activities to fund himself: perhaps not an incorrect conjecture, but one that is insufficient to meet the requirement that the occupation being restricted or banned “bear a reasonably direct relationship” to the “conduct relevant to the offense of conviction.” U.S.S.G. § 5F.15(a); cf. United States v. Wittig, 528 F.3d 1280, 1288 (10th Cir. 2008) (reasoning, on the basis of the relevant statute and guidelines, that a court that did not explain how the occupational restriction related to the offense of conviction had erred, and that “[t]he mere fact [Defendant] engaged in such conduct while employed as an executive does not establish the necessary connection between the conduct and his management/executive positions”). The No. 13-3373 13 court also noted Farmer’s spotty tax payment history, stating: “He hasn’t paid anything into Social Security other than $1,200. He’s 48 years old. He’s going to have nothing paid in as he becomes a senior citizen.” But Farmer’s offense of conviction is extortion rather than a tax offense. Farmer’s age and status with regard to Social Security seem irrelevant to whether there was a “reasonably direct relationship” between his extortionate activities and his self-employment. Because the district court’s explanation did not satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and U.S.S.G. §§ 5D1.3(e)(4), 5F1.5(a), we also vacate this special condition and remand for further consideration.