did not specify its reasons for doing so. To the extent that the district court adopted the Probation Office’s rationale and imposed the self-employment restriction solely as a tool to prevent Mr. Manning from wasting funds that would otherwise- be available to help satisfy his restitution obligation, we would be hard-pressed to uphold the restriction as having a reasonably direct relationship to conduct relevant to his misapplication offense. Cf. Erwin, 299 F.3d at 1232-33 (“The district court, however, did not demonstrate that any relationship existed between commercial fishing and unlawful conduct similar to possession of ammunition.”). On a more developed record, however, other or additional justifications for the restriction may have been revealed. Cf. Turner, 88 Fed.Appx. at 314 (<HOLDING>). Because Mr. Manning did not object to the
holding that there was a sufficiently direct relationship between restricting the defendants selfemployment as a roofer and his bank fraud conviction when the defendant used his roofing business to facilitate the fraud and after his initial sentence he failed to provide information about his business activities to his probation officer holding that an applicant may establish eligibility for asylum based exclusively on activities undertaken after his arrival in the united states so long as he demonstrates that authorities in his country are aware of his activities or likely to become aware of his activities holding that the state failed to rebut the defendants testimony that he was forced to leave his approved residence and could not reach the probation officer to inform him of his move holding that the defendant waived the right to appeal his sentence including the terms and conditions of his supervised release when he agreed to a plea agreement that said he expressly waives his right to appeal the conviction and sentence imposed on any ground emphasis added holding that defendant was not resident of his mothers household even though his drivers license listed his mothers address and he received mail there because he expressed a belief that his residence was in a different location than his mothers home he rented and occupied his own residence and he testified that he was only living with his mother after expiration of his lease until he could find another place to live