Guidelines clearly requires a connection between the occupational restriction and the underlying offense for which the defendant was convicted. Mr. Turner pleaded guilty to defrauding three financial institutions with which he held checking accounts through his roofing business. After his initial sentencing, he failed to provide information about his business activities to the probation officer in violation of the terms of his supervised release. Based on these connections, the district court acted well within its discretion when it concluded that Mr. Turner’s occupation as a self-employed roofer bears “a reasonably direct relationship” to his offense of bank fraud, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d) and U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5(a). See United States v. Smith, 332 F.3d 455, 461 (7th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); cf. Erwin, 299 F.3d at 1232-33 (holding that
holding that the connection between defendants employment as a truck driver and his crime of theft of interstate freight was sufficiently obvious for purposes of ussg  5f15al holding that the hobbs act did not apply to the robbery of a computer company executive in his home even though the crime may have prevented him from getting to work or making busi ness calls because his only connection with interstate commerce was his employment by a business engaged in interstate commerce holding mailing a threatening letter was a crime of violence for the purposes of ussg  4b11 holding that theft from the person is not a crime of violence holding that  215 is categorically a crime of violence for purposes of ussg  2l12