UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

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 
3

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