Filed: Mar. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2019
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JAMES P. JONES , District Judge . The defendant, Billy Wayne Page, was indicted for being a felon and unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 922(g)(3) and 924(e). He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. I determined that Page was an armed career criminal based on three prior convictions for Virginia burglary and one prior conviction for Virginia escape from custody. On January 22, 2004, I sentenced Pag
Summary: OPINION AND ORDER JAMES P. JONES , District Judge . The defendant, Billy Wayne Page, was indicted for being a felon and unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), 922(g)(3) and 924(e). He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. I determined that Page was an armed career criminal based on three prior convictions for Virginia burglary and one prior conviction for Virginia escape from custody. On January 22, 2004, I sentenced Page..
More
OPINION AND ORDER
JAMES P. JONES, District Judge.
The defendant, Billy Wayne Page, was indicted for being a felon and unlawful user of controlled substances in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 922(g)(3) and 924(e). He pleaded guilty without a plea agreement. I determined that Page was an armed career criminal based on three prior convictions for Virginia burglary and one prior conviction for Virginia escape from custody. On January 22, 2004, I sentenced Page to 120 months imprisonment, following a motion by the government for a reduction in sentence based on his substantial assistance to the government. Page did not appeal. He has served his prison sentence and is currently serving a term of supervised release for violating his conditions of supervision.1
On December 12, 2016, Page filed a § 2255 motion, alleging that he was entitled to a reduced sentence following the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson. I granted the United States' Motion to Dismiss on the ground that his motion was barred by applicable statute of limitations. United States v. Page, No. 2:03CR10069, 2017 WL 3835886 (W.D. Va. Sept. 1, 2017). The Supreme Court issued its Johnson decision on June 26, 2015. Page filed his § 2255 motion almost six months late.
On November 28, 2018, Page filed a second § 2255 motion, again based on the Johnson decision. I denied the motion as successive. Order, Nov. 29, 2018, ECF No. 158. The court of appeals subsequently denied his motion seeking authorization to file a second or successive application under § 2255. In Re Page, No. 18-418 (4th Cir. Jan. 3, 2019).
Page has filed two pro se motions with this court, one entitled, "Motion to be Resentenced under Proper Guidelines," ECF No. 159, and the second entitled, "Motion to Dismiss and Terminate Supervision," ECF No. 155. Both motions again raise the Johnson claim. These claims could only be asserted by way of a § 2255 motion, which would be barred for the reasons previously determined. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the two motions are DENIED.
