United States v. Shaun Rosiere, 711 F. App'x 76

Shaun Rosiere pleaded guilty to two counts of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and was sentenced to 73 months imprisonment plus three years supervised release and $1,260,000 restitution.
After release (Nov. 2015) and while serving supervised release in Nevada, Rosiere filed three motions seeking: (1) placement in a 120-day federal residential reentry facility in lieu of most of his remaining supervised release, (2) permission for unrestricted travel to California to visit family, and (3) a reduction in the frequency of random drug testing.
The District Court solicited the Probation Office’s response; the Probation Office reported multiple instances of Rosiere’s noncompliance (late or incomplete financial disclosures, failure to seek employment, incomplete travel request information, lack of restitution payments).
The District Court denied all three motions under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e), concluding Rosiere had not shown modification would be "in the interest of justice," and found no authority for trading supervised release for residential confinement; travel requests were discretionary; and drug testing conditions were not onerous.
Rosiere appealed and submitted a reply alleging factual errors in the Probation Office’s report and disputing procedural opportunity to respond; the Third Circuit summarily affirmed, finding no substantial question and that the District Court’s denial was reasonable.

Issue	Rosiere's Argument	Probation/District Court's Argument	Held
Whether supervised release may be modified to allow placement in a reentry facility for 120 days instead of remaining supervised release	Requested transfer to a reentry center and early release after 120 days to avoid remaining 2.5 years of supervision	No authority permits trading supervised release for a shorter term of residential confinement; § 3583(e) requires showing it is in the interest of justice	Denied — court found no basis to modify; motion not in interest of justice
Whether Rosiere should be permitted unrestricted travel to California	Seeks permission to travel anytime to assist family; claims Probation delayed/blocked travel and misreported facts	Travel is discretionary; Rosiere failed to provide required information and verification; he may resubmit if he complies	Denied — District Court reasonably declined; resubmission permitted upon compliance
Whether to reduce frequency of random drug testing by Probation	Argues testing is over-burdensome and should be reduced	Testing requirement is not onerous or over-burdensome	Denied — drug-testing condition reasonable

United States v. Wilson, 707 F.3d 412 (3d Cir. 2013) (modification of supervised release is reviewed for reasonableness)