US v. Travis Bowman, No. 08-4473 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-4473 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. TRAVIS WAYNE BOWMAN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (2:07-cr-00027-LHT-1) Submitted: March 17, 2009 Decided: March 19, 2009 Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Claire J. Rauscher, Executive Director, Federal Defenders of Western North Carolina, Inc., Charlotte, North Carolina; Raquel Wilson, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Adam Morris, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Travis Wayne Bowman appeals from the 120-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2006). We dismiss the appeal based on the waiver contained in Bowman s plea agreement. On appeal, Bowman Bowman waived his right to appeal his sentence with enhancements. the three Sentencing sentence. of and U.S. Manual exception two the Guidelines the chapter challenges application of enhancements chapter two to and his four He alleges that the chapter two and three applied enhancements are invalid because the district court relied on facts that were not charged in the indictment or admitted by him in imposing sentence, Government challenge the in violation notes, the statutory of however, chapter three maximum, the Bowman below Sixth has Guidelines Amendment. waived enhancement his range, As the right to entirely. Bowman s Sixth Amendment challenge to the chapter two enhancement is also waived because it does guideline enhancement. not implicate the application of the See United States v. Clark, 415 F.3d 1234 (10th Cir. 2005). * * Even if the merits of the chapter two enhancement were before the court, the claim is foreclosed by our decision in United States v. Benkahla, 530 F.3d 300, 312 (4th Cir. 2008). 2 We find that the waiver in the plea agreement bars the claims brought on appeal and therefore dismiss the appeal. 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. DISMISSED 3