UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 challenges the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual chapter two and three enhancements to his
sentence. Bowman waived his right to appeal his sentence with
the exception of the application of chapter two and four
enhancements. 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 the statutory maximum, below Guidelines range,
sentence, in violation of the Sixth Amendment. As the
Government notes, however, Bowman has waived his right to
challenge the chapter three enhancement entirely. Bowman’s
Sixth Amendment challenge to the chapter two enhancement is also
waived because it does not implicate the application of the
guideline enhancement. 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