United States v. Billy Page ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In 2004, Billy Wayne Page was sentenced to 120 months’
imprisonment, to be followed by a 5-year term of 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). Upon
release from imprisonment, Page violated his terms of
supervision and the district court revoked 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 argues that his sentence is plainly
unreasonable. 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.” United States v. Thompson,
595 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks
omitted). Accordingly, to be successfully 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
as it must be when imposing a post-conviction sentence,” but its
explanation must still provide a sufficient basis for appellate
review. Id. at 547-48.
We conclude that Page’s sentence is not plainly
unreasonable. Page argues that the combination of imprisonment
and community confinement renders his sentence plainly
unreasonable. Page’s term of imprisonment falls within the
policy statement range. U.S. Sentencing Guidelines
Manual § 7B1.4, p.s. (2014). Moreover, the district court
properly included an additional term of supervised release.
USSG § 7B1.3(g)(2). The district court was further authorized
to impose a term of community confinement as a condition of
supervised release. USSG § 5F1.1. A review of the record
assures us that the district court considered 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. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3