NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ 

No. 11-1991

_____________

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

JAMES IRLAND HOTY FLOYD,

Appellant 

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(D.C. Criminal No. 2-08-cr-00438-001)

District Judge: Honorable Susan D. Wigenton

_____________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 11, 2012

Before: RENDELL, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed July 19, 2012) 

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_____________

RENDELL, Circuit Judge.

James Floyd appeals from the District Court’s denial of his motion to modify the 

terms of his probation. Floyd argues that the District Court procedurally erred by 

foregoing a hearing and failing to consider the sentencing factors at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). 

He also argues that the District Court substantively erred by sustaining conditions that 
2

prevent him from obtaining gainful employment. Neither contention, however, warrants 

relief. We will therefore affirm.

I.

We write principally for the benefit of the parties and therefore recount only those 

facts essential to our review. 

From 2001 to 2003, Floyd was involved in a multi-state scheme to distribute 

unapproved prescription drugs. During this time, he also neglected to pay income taxes 

on commissions received from the drug sales. Accordingly, Floyd was indicted and 

pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States and tax evasion. In March 

2009, the District Court imposed separate sentences of five years’ probation for each 

offense, to run concurrently. The conditions of Floyd’s probation restricted his travel to 

four states, absent permission from his parole officer or the court, and required that he 

work regularly at a lawful occupation and support his dependants.

Unsuccessful in his attempts to procure employment, Floyd faced great financial 

hardship. But, in March 2011, he was offered a job with L3 Communications as an 

aircraft mechanic. L3 planned for Floyd’s training to occur in Ft. Benning, Georgia, but 

expected to station him—for up to one year—in Iraq, Afghanistan, or Kuwait. After 

Floyd’s probation officer deferred to the court on his request for permission to relocate, 

Floyd filed a motion to modify the terms of his probation to allow travel outside of the 

United States. Without holding a hearing, the District Court summarily denied the 

motion. Floyd sought reconsideration of that denial, but again did not succeed.
3

The instant appeal followed.1

II.

“[W]e review challenges to . . . a district court’s decision to modify the terms of 

release for abuse of discretion.”2 United States v. Smith, 445 F.3d 713, 716 (3d Cir. 

2006).

Floyd challenges both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of the 

District Court’s denial of his motion to modify the terms of his probation. However, the 

statute governing modification of the conditions of probation confers significant

discretion on the District Court, and no abuse occurred by virtue of its decision not to 

allow Floyd to relocate abroad for an extensive period of time.

First, Floyd argues that the District Court erred by failing to consider the § 3553(a) 

factors. However, the statute that governs modifications of the conditions of probation, 

18 U.S.C. § 3563(c), contains no language requiring courts to do so. By contrast, related 

statutes governing the early termination of probation, 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c), and the 

modification of supervised release, 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), do expressly require 

consideration of 3553(a) factors.

3

 “[T]he failure of Congress to [include a similar

 

1

The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3563(c) and we have 

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

2

This case deals with a motion to modify the terms of probation, not supervised release. 

Nonetheless, the same standard of review applies and the parties agree that it is an abuseof-discretion standard.

3 Compare 18 U.S.C. § 3563(c) (“The court may modify . . . conditions of a sentence of 

probation . . . pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 
4

requirement in § 3563] . . . must not be considered an oversight or casual omission.” See

Lewis v. Am. Fed’n of State and Cnty. Mun. Emps., 407 F.2d 1185, 1189 (3d Cir. 1969). 

Floyd points to no authority supporting a contrary conclusion. Furthermore, even if § 

3563(c) is read to require courts to apply the 3553(a) factors when modifying conditions 

of probation, no requirement exists when, as in the instant case, the court decides not to

modify. Therefore, the District Court’s failure to address the 3553(a) factors did not 

constitute procedural error.

Floyd also urges that the District Court erred by depriving him of a hearing on the 

motion and failing to provide any explanation for its denial. Both arguments lack merit. 

First, the District Court is not required to hold a hearing when, as in this case, “the relief 

sought is favorable to the person and does not extend the term of probation . . . ; and an 

attorney for the government has received notice of the relief sought, has had a reasonable 

opportunity to object, and has not done so.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c)(2). Second, no

authority to which Floyd cites obligated the District Court to provide a written 

explanation for its denial of his motion. Given the drastic modification Floyd sought, the 

District Court’s decision required no lengthy rationale. Thus, neither the District Court’s 

failure to hold a hearing nor its failure to explain itself amounted to an abuse of 

discretion.

 

relating to the modification of probation and the provisions applicable to the initial 

setting of the conditions of probation.”), with 18 U.S.C. § 3564(c) (“The court, after 

considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) . . . may . . . terminate a term of 

probation.”) (emphasis added), and 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) (The court may, after 

considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) . . . terminate . . . extend . . . [or] 

revoke a term of supervised release.”) (emphasis added).
5

Floyd’s substantive objection lacks merit as well. He argues that the overly 

restrictive prohibition on his travel represents a “greater deprivation of liberty than is 

reasonably necessary to achieve the deterrence, public protection and/or correctional 

treatment for which it is imposed.” Smith, 445 F.3d at 713. Though cognizant of the 

hardship travel restrictions can cause, we are nevertheless compelled to disagree. The 

nature of Floyd’s offenses well warranted, and continue to warrant, restrictions on his 

travel. Floyd did not just seek permission to visit another state; he sought authorization 

for a year-long stay in Middle Eastern countries. As Floyd’s probation officer noted, 

probationers are not typically approved for extended international travel because granting 

such freedom would make supervision very difficult, if not impossible. Thus the District 

Court’s denial was not substantively unreasonable and, therefore, not an abuse of 

discretion. 

III.

For all of these reasons, we will affirm the District Court’s denial of the motion.