conditions in Barajas were recommended by the Guidelines. See Aplt. Reply Br. at 9 ("Occupational restrictions are not like conditions the guidelines make standard or recommended, which a defendant should be aware are in play.”). Nothing in the language of Barajas, however, suggests that it has such a limited reach. Moreover, occupational restrictions are front and center in the Guidelines as an available discretionary condition of supervised release: Not only are occupational restrictions listed in § 5D1.3 with other possible special conditions, the Guidelines address them in a separate section, § 5FI.5. This lends significant support to the idea that a reasonable defendant should have known that the imposition of such restrictions was possible. E.g., Turner, 88 Fed. Appx. at 316 (<HOLDING>). In any event, on the facts of this case where
holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding that specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added holding that the statutory and guidelines provisions that authorize the imposition of an occupational restriction give constructive notice emphasis added