US v. Billy Page

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:03-cr-10069-JPJ-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999627936]. [15-4027]

Appeal: 15-4027

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-4027

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY WAYNE PAGE,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap.
James P. Jones,
District Judge. (2:03-cr-10069-JPJ-1)

Submitted:

July 10, 2015

Decided:

July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry W. Shelton, Federal Public Defender, Christine Madeleine
Lee, Research and Writing Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Anthony P. Giorno, Acting United States Attorney,
Jean
B.
Hudson,
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-4027

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
In

2004,

imprisonment,

Billy
to

Wayne

be

Page

followed

was

by

a

sentenced
5-year

to

term

120

of

months’

supervised

release, after pleading guilty to being a felon and unlawful
user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), (3), 924(e) (2012).
release

from

supervision

imprisonment,

and

the

Page

district

violated

court

revoked

Upon

his

terms

of

his

supervised

release, sentenced him to six months’ imprisonment, and imposed
four years of supervised release.

During this second period of

supervision, the district court found that Page again violated
his terms of supervision.

The district court sentenced Page to

14 months’ imprisonment, to be followed by 3 years of supervised
release, including 6 months in a community confinement center.
On

appeal,

Page

unreasonable.

argues

that

his

sentence

is

plainly

We affirm.

We review “whether or not sentences imposed upon revocation
of supervised release are within the prescribed statutory range
and are not plainly unreasonable.”
595

F.3d

omitted).

544,

546

(4th

Accordingly,

Cir.
to

United States v. Thompson,

2010)
be

(internal

successfully

quotation

marks

challenged,

a

revocation sentence must be both unreasonable and “run afoul of
clearly settled law.”

Id. at 548.

The district court “need not

be as detailed or specific when imposing a revocation sentence
2

Appeal: 15-4027

Doc: 23

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence,” but its
explanation must still provide a sufficient basis for appellate
review.
We

Id. at 547-48.
conclude

unreasonable.
and

unreasonable.

confinement
Page’s

statement

Manual § 7B1.4,
properly

Page’s

sentence

is

not

plainly

Page argues that the combination of imprisonment

community

policy

that

term

renders
of

included

USSG § 7B1.3(g)(2).

U.S.

(2014).

an

sentence

imprisonment

range.

p.s.

his

Sentencing

Moreover,

additional

falls

term

of

the

plainly

within

the

Guidelines

district

supervised

court

release.

The district court was further authorized

to impose a term of community confinement as a condition of
supervised
assures

release.

us

that

the

USSG

§ 5F1.1.

district

court

A

review

of

considered

the

record

the

policy

statement range, the parties’ arguments, and Page’s conduct, and
provided an adequate explanation for its sentence.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

the

facts

and

We

legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3