District court erred by imposing occupational restriction as condition of supervised release

SENTENCING United States v. Wittig, No. 07-3051, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Jun 17, 2008)(Kansas). Appeal of sentence for conspiracy, bank fraud and money laundering. HELD: (1) Although it would have been error for the district court to use intended loss and gross receipt values to calculate sentencing guidelines range, where those amounts had already been attributed to another defendant, it was not error to use those values as guideposts to assist the district court in its exercise of discretion in varying from guidelines to meet sentencing requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). (2) District court abused its discretion by imposing occupational restriction as special condition of supervised release in which defendant was prohibited from being employed as executive and further prohibited from engaging in any financial agreements or negotiations in professional capacity without court approval. Occupational restriction is infirm because: (1) it was not based on any reasonably direct relationship between defendant's profession and conduct relevant to offense of conviction; (2) it was not based on any finding that defendant would continue to engage in unlawful conduct similar to that for which he was convicted; and (3) district court failed to consider any less restrictive alternatives. Read the opinion here.