United States v. Du ( 2007 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
PUBLISH
February 22, 2007
UNITED STATES CO URT O F APPEALS Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. Nos. 05-1288 and 05-1371
R UIA N D U ,
Defendant-Appellant.
_________________________
U N ITED STA TES O F A M ER ICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 06-1053
RA CH EL CHAV EZ,
Defendant-Appellant.
A PPE AL FR OM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR T HE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
(D .C . N O. 04-C R -200-PSF and NO. 04-CR-340-W DM )
John T. Carlson, Research and Writing Attorney (W arren R. W illiamson,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, with him on the briefs) Office of the Federal
Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Appellants.
Peter H. W alsh, Assistant United States Attorney (Jerry N. Jones, Assistant
United States Attorney, with him on the consolidated brief for Case Numbers 05-
1288 and 05-1371, and on the brief for 06-1053) Office of the United States
Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Before M U RPH Y, A ND ER SO N, and TYM KOVICH, Circuit Judges.
T YM K O VIC H, Circuit Judge.
This case requires us to consider the scope of our decision in United States
v. Souser, 405 F.3d 1162 (10th Cir. 2005), as applied to a new employment
verification policy for federal probationers established by the Colorado probation
office. In Souser, we held that an earlier policy requiring probationers “to inform
their employers of their criminal history unless they can convince their probation
officer and the sentencing judge that employer notification is not necessary” was
an occupational restriction under § 5F1.5 of the United States Sentencing
Guidelines (U SSG). Id. at 1167. Because the policy was an occupational
restriction, the probation office could not enforce the policy without an
individualized assessment of its need for each probationer. In response to our
decision in Souser, Colorado adopted a new policy. The new policy— while not
mandating notification— requires probation officers to verify the employment of
persons on probation by contacting their employers.
Two probationers, Ruian Du and Rachel Chavez, independently challenge
the employment verification policy, arguing that it violates Souser because it also
imposes an occupational restriction on probationers under § 5F1.5. Their
arguments w ere rejected by two different district courts, and defendants’ timely
appeals were consolidated in this case.
-2-
H aving jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291, w e
find that an employment verification policy does not constitute an occupational
restriction under the federal sentencing guidelines and therefore AFFIRM .
I. Background
Ruian Du pleaded guilty to one count of destruction of mail by a United
States Postal Service employee in violation of 18 U .S.C. § 1703(a). As a
condition of his probation, the district court required him to obtain lawful
employment. He complied by accepting a job as a school bus driver for the
Douglas County School District.
Rachel Chavez pleaded guilty to one count of making false statements to
the government in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. As a condition of her probation,
the district court required her to obtain lawful employment. She obtained
employment as a driver for elderly and handicapped individuals. 1
The probation office’s employment verification policy applied to both
defendants. They each sought a stay of the application of the policy in district
court. Du argued that it constituted an occupational restriction in violation of
Souser. The district court held otherwise, finding that the verification policy
substantively differed from the notification policy at issue in Souser and therefore
1
Originally, Chavez was subjected to the employer notification policy.
She alleges this notification resulted in the loss of one job and several job offers.
She did not notify her current employer of her conviction and in fact actively
concealed it on her job application.
-3-
did not constitute an occupational restriction. A probation officer subsequently
contacted the school district to verify Du’s employment.
A different district court judge also rejected Chavez’s challenge for slightly
different reasons, finding that the policy is “entirely consistent” with USSG.
§ 5F1.5, and that it would be detrimental to the supervisory obligations of the
probation office to preclude monitoring of probationers’ employment status. R.
Vol. II, at 35.
II. Discussion
Federal statutes and the sentencing guidelines allow district courts to
establish reasonable conditions as a part of probation or supervised release. For
instance, 18 U.S.C. § 3563 provides a litany of mandatory and discretionary
conditions, including: (1) meeting family support and restitution obligations,
§ 3563(b)(1)–(2); (2) finding suitable employment and performing it
conscientiously, § 3563(b)(4); (3) refraining from visiting undesirable places or
people, § 3563(b)(6); (4) agreeing to visits by probation officers at any time or
place, § 3563(14); and (5) most relevant to these appeals, adhering to
“occupational restrictions” by refraining from certain types of employment,
§ 3563(b)(5).
Federal probation officers, in turn, monitor a probationer’s compliance with
the terms and conditions of probation under the authority granted in 18 U.S.C.
§ 3603. That statute requires probation officers, among other things, to (1) keep
-4-
abreast of a probationer’s living and working conditions, (2) keep a record of a
probationer’s work, and (3) report periodically to the sentencing court the
probationer’s compliance with the conditions of release. § 3603(2)–(3), (5), (7).
These various statutory requirements are implemented at sentencing
through a variety of provisions in the Guidelines. Chapter 5B, for example,
covers probation conditions generally, and includes a provision that can mandate
disclosure of a probationer’s criminal record to third parties. § 5B1.3(c)(13).
Chapter 5F covers sentencing options and requires specific findings before
imposing any employment conditions that are considered “occupational
restrictions” under § 3563(b)(5).
A. Conditions on Employment
Occupational restrictions under § 3563(b)(5) can restrict a probationer’s
employment in two ways: a court may require that a probationer (1) “refrain . . .
from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or profession bearing a
reasonably direct relationship to the conduct constituting the offense,” or (2)
“engage in such a specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated
degree or under stated circumstances.”
According to the Guidelines, an occupational restriction is permissible in
the follow ing circumstances:
The court may impose a condition of probation or supervised release
prohibiting the defendant from engaging in a specified occupation,
-5-
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.
§ 5F1.5.
An occupational restriction can thereby serve two purposes. First, it can
first prevent a probationer from taking a certain type of employment. For
example, a sex offender may not be allowed to work around children. Second, a
lesser restriction can limit the “terms” of a probationer’s employment. For
example, a defendant convicted of fraud may be restricted from working in a
position handling money at a bank or may be required to discuss with the
employer bank the details of his criminal history.
The question presented in Souser required us to look at the second type of
restriction, limits on the terms of a defendant’s employment.
B. Souser
In Souser, we reviewed an employer notification policy that Colorado’s
probation office had informally adopted in its internal operations manual. The
policy in place at the time required probationers, prior to and as a condition of
-6-
accepting employment, to notify potential employers of their conviction,
supervision status, and any prior criminal history relevant to their employment
situation. The policy allowed probationers to be excused from this duty only if
they were able to demonstrate hardship arising from notification. The probation
office justified the informal policy as necessary to provide third parties with
notice of an employee’s criminal history and any risks associated with that
history.
The defendant argued that the employer notification policy acted as an
occupational restriction. W e agreed, concluding:
[p]ursuant to the plain language of § 5F1.5, an “occupational
restriction” is a condition of probation that either “prohibit[s] the
defendant from engaging in a specified occupation, business, or
profession, or limit[s] the terms on which the defendant may do so.”
Because an employer notification requirement limits the terms on which
a defendant may engage in the specified occupation, it m ust be treated
as an occupational restriction.
Id. at 1165 (internal citation omitted and emphasis added).
W e found that requiring probationers to affirmatively disclose their
criminal record prior to accepting employment “limits the terms” on which a
probationer may seek employment. In other words, it placed an obligation on the
probationers to accept employment only on condition of mandated disclosure of
specific and detailed information about their criminal history. Since the
notification policy implicated the literal terms of § 5F1.5, we required
-7-
individualized findings on a case-by-case basis before the condition could be
imposed. 2
C. Employment Verification Policy
In response to our decision in Souser, Colorado changed its employment
notification policy in M ay 2005. The probation office adopted what it called an
“employment verification policy.” The new policy was subsequently approved by
Colorado’s federal district judges.
Under the new policy, probation officers no longer require probationers to
affirmatively contact employers and disclose their criminal status as a condition
of and prior to employment. Probation officers are instead directed to “personally
verify the employment of persons on probation or supervised release.” Appellee
Answer Br. Attach. 1 at 1. The policy was intended to correct the flaws in the
notification policy identified in Souser. According to the policy statement,
The significant difference between this new policy and the previous policy
is that the defendant is not required to notify the employer about their
supervision status. Rather, the officer, consistent with statutory duties
outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3603, is required to verify employment information
2
At least one circuit has concluded that notification policies are not
occupational restrictions. United States v. Ritter, 118 F.3d 502, 504 n.2 (6th Cir.
1997). Other circuits, however, have concluded that notification policies may
constitute an occupational restriction. See, e.g., United States v. Britt, 332 F.3d
1229, 1232 (9th Cir. 2003) (finding that “it is clear that when a defendant is
required to notify his clients of his criminal history, he is being subjected to an
occupational restriction that must meet the requirements of § 5F1.5”); United
States v. Peterson, 248 F.3d 79, 85–86 (2d Cir. 2001) (treating condition that
required defendant to report conviction to his employer as an occupational
restriction); United States v. Doe, 79 F.3d 1309, 1322 (2d Cir. 1996) (same).
-8-
about duties, responsibilities, compensation, and other employment
information relevant to supervision.
Id. at 1 (emphasis in original).
As further support for the new policy, the following explanations were
included to distinguish it from the prior notification policy:
(1) Verification is consistent with the duties of probation officers as
outlined in 18 U.S.C. § 3603(2);
(2) Personal verification of employment by officers ensures that the
defendant is actually employed in the capacity he/she reports and
allows the officer to confirm whether any third-party risks exist that
may require employment restrictions;
(3) Personal contact with employers to verify employment enables
officers to build relationships with employers which support the
officer’s ability to assess an offender’s progress under supervision;
(4) Personal verification of an employment situation enhances the
officer’s ability to make informed decisions and recommendations to
the court regarding employment related travel, funds available for
restitution, and potential third-party risk issues; and
(5) Establishing open contact with employers avoids the aw kward
situation of officers trying to conceal their true identities . . . when
trying to contact an offender at a job site.
Id. at 1–2.
According to probation officers who testified about its scope and
application in the stay proceedings below, the new policy is important for several
reasons related to their supervisory responsibilities. First, it allows officers to
confirm that probationers on home detention are attending their jobs or working
full-time. Second, it allows officers to confirm that probationers are
-9-
conscientious and hard-working in their employment. Third, officers can
investigate the duties and responsibilities of employment to determine whether
more restrictive conditions are necessary. In applying the policy, probation
officers do not volunteer information to the employer about the probationer’s
offense or criminal history. They will, however, disclose public information
about the probationer if asked.
A policy allowing self-reporting of work status by the probationer was
deemed inadequate given the number of probationers that must be monitored and
the ease of fabricating or misreporting work history and performance. According
to the testimony below , employers routinely have been contacted for many years
as a part of probation services, and few probationers have lost their jobs as a
result. The witnesses estimated that fewer than one percent of probationers have
lost jobs as a result of employer contacts and that probationers maintain a high
95% employment rate as a rule.
In sum, the new verification policy differs in significant ways from the
prior notification policy: (1) it does not require the probation officer to inform the
employer of the employee’s criminal history; (2) it places no burden on the
probationer to inform an employer about a conviction; and (3) it does not require
any duties of either the probation office or the probationer before the probationer
accepts employment.
-10-
D. Application of Souser
The issue is whether this new verification policy constitutes an
occupational restriction like the one we reviewed in Souser. W e conclude that it
does not.
The distinctions betw een the two policies make a difference in two
important respects. First, the burdens on probationers are entirely different.
Under the prior notification policy, the probationer had a pre-employment
obligation to inform potential employers about his or her criminal history. In this
sense, employer notification conditions the probationer’s employment— before
beginning any job, a probationer had to affirmatively notify a potential employer
of his criminal history, including details of “risks that may be occasioned by the
defendant’s criminal record or personal history or characteristics.” Souser, 405
F.3d at 1163–64. And if the probationer failed to give the requisite notice, the
policy required the probation officer to notify the employer. Thus, under this
policy a probationer could not accept any work w ithout the requisite disclosures,
and the disclosures might include information far afield from the offense of
conviction. 3
3
The employer notification policy entailed active disclosure of not only
the probationer’s public record of conviction, but also any other personal
information that the probation officer could arguably construe as placing the
employer at risk. Under the new employment verification policy, in contrast, the
probation officer contacts the employer only after the probationer has obtained
employment and only for the purpose of job verification. The probation officer is
(continued...)
-11-
In contrast, the verification policy does not require the probationer to do
anything as a condition of employment. Instead, it requires probation officers to
verify a probationer’s employment status, with no affirmative obligation on the
probationer. Nor is a probationer penalized if a probation officer fails to verify
his employment. The policy places no obligation on the probation officer to
provide information about a probationer’s crime or criminal history. In fact, the
probationer can continue his employment regardless of whether a probation
officer enforces the verification policy. The new policy, in short, does not limit
the terms of employment under the plain meaning of § 5F1.5.
Second, the goals underlying the notification and verification policies are
entirely different. The notification policy at issue in Souser mandated disclosure
of a probationer’s criminal history to an employer. The apparent goal of the
policy was to reduce employers’ and third parties’ risks by ensuring that the
employer knew of a potential employee’s criminal background prior to hiring the
employee.
3
(...continued)
discreet: he does not necessarily inform the employer that he is a probation
officer and will disclose the probationer’s public record of conviction only if
asked. Of course, probationers may choose to notify the employer of their
criminal status before such verification occurs. But they are not required to do
so. In sum, it is simply irrelevant under the verification policy whether the
employer knows of the probationer’s criminal history, as the probationer’s
employment is not conditioned on notification.
-12-
The goal of the verification policy is broader and is not focused on the
employer’s knowledge. The verification policy instead implements the probation
officer’s statutory duty to monitor a probationer’s progress toward rehabilitation.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3603(2) (requiring a probation officer to “keep informed, to the
degree required by the conditions specified by the sentencing court, as to the
conduct and condition of a probationer . . . and report his conduct and condition
to the sentencing court”); id. § 3603(3) (requiring a probation officer to “use all
suitable methods . . . to aid a probationer. . . and to bring about improvements in
his conduct and condition”); id. § 3603(4) (requiring a probation officer to “be
responsible for the supervision of any probationer”); id. 3603(5) (requiring a
probation officer to “keep a record of [the probationer’s] work”). The
rehabilitative goals of probation depend on reliable information about the
probationer’s life and conduct that may only be obtained by personal contact with
a probationer’s employer. 4 Thus, the verification policy furthers important
4
Du and Chavez argue that the probation officers can comply with these
mandates in a less intrusive manner, such as obtaining a probationer’s pay stubs.
W hile perhaps the verification policy could be modified in many ways, the
Guidelines do not require courts to supervise the details of a policy that does not
impose an occupational restriction. Suffice it to say, the record suggests that a
pay stub or other methods of verification would be insufficient to inform the
officer if a probationer consistently arrives to work on time, is considered a good
employee, associates w ith other felons, or appears engaged in his work— the very
type of information which allows a probation officer to assess a probationer’s
progress. Nor does a pay stub allow an officer to build a relationship with an
employer, thereby enabling the officer to promote the probationer’s best interests.
Nevertheless, the courts are neither equipped for nor in the business of making
(continued...)
-13-
statutory obligations, and, as we have noted, it does not conflict w ith the plain
meaning of § 5F1.5.
W e also note that Souser focused on required disclosures and did not bar all
contact between an employer and a probation officer. Of course, the verification
policy may inevitably result in some employers finding out about an employee’s
criminal history. But nonetheless we cannot construe every policy that has the
potential for notification as an occupational restriction. As a matter of fact, many
job applicants are already routinely asked about their criminal status when
applying for jobs, so at worst a verification policy discloses nothing more than
what the employer already knows about an employee. M oreover, reading § 5F1.5
so broadly as to apply to any contacts between probation officers and employers
that might result in disclosure of information about an individual’s criminal
history could unduly restrict the use of other common and essential conditions of
probation. For example, probation often includes garnishment of wages for
restitution or workplace visits by a probation officer, both of which could notify
an employer of a probationer’s status. Taken to its extreme, any contact with an
employer might lead to “notification” of a probationer’s criminal history. Section
5F1.5 does not extend so far. And in any event, we presume and expect that
4
(...continued)
the daily, factually-intensive decisions of the probation officer, and we decline to
micro-manage the probation office’s application of policies that do not limit the
terms of employment.
-14-
under the verification policy, a probation officer will exercise reasonable
discretion in determining whether personal contact with an employer is necessary
in a particular case to carry out his statutory duties.
Du and Chavez argue that the differences in policies are trivial. They argue
the problem with the employment notification policy is not that employment is
conditioned on notification, but that notification occurs at all, and this objection
applies equally to the verification policy. They claim adverse consequences are
likely to flow from verification, including termination, increased monitoring by
the employer, or disclosure of a probationer’s criminal status to their peers.
But the notification policy in Souser was not an occupational restriction
merely because of possible adverse consequences. It was an occupational
restriction because notification was required as a condition of employment. The
verification policy, however, places no preconditional terms of employment on
the probationer. A probationer may accept any form of employment, engage in
any task required by this employment, and need not disclose anything to his
employer as a result of the verification policy. Nor does the policy require
employers to be told information about a probationer’s criminal history. It only
requires that the probation officer confirm the fact of employment, not disclose
the details of the probationer’s offenses.
Finally, we note the record developed before the district court suggests that
adverse consequences of notification and verification are exaggerated. Only a
-15-
small percentage of probationers actually lost work as a result of employer
contacts that probation officers routinely made prior to adoption of the
verification policy. W e also note that probationers who object to employment
verification are entitled to seek exclusion from the policy on a case-by-case basis.
In sum, the employment verification policy does not place any “limit[s] on
the terms” of employment, § 5F1.5, or require a probationer to “engage in [] a
specified occupation, business, or profession only to a stated degree or under
stated circumstances.” 18 U.S.C. § 3563(b)(5). Accordingly, it is not an
occupational restriction requiring individualized or case-by-case implementation.
III. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we AFFIRM .
-16-