US · guidelines
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).
History
Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective November 1, 1989 (amendments 285 and 302); November 1, 1991 (amendment 428); November 1, 2002 (amendment 646).
Provenance
- Source
- ussc.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-20
- Edition
- ussg-2018
- Content hash
538176bedbae7452e0089d5879403e72648c72c4814b949a0734ad04667c7785
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.