United States v. Bowens , 282 F. App'x 230 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-5152
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
BILLY BOWENS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00078-1)
Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: June 23, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Michael Frazier, FRAZIER & OXLEY, L.C., Huntington, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Charles T. Miller, United States
Attorney, Monica L. Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Bowens pled guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (2000), and was sentenced to
a term of thirty-seven months imprisonment, the bottom of the
guideline range established under the United States Sentencing
Guidelines. Bowens seeks to appeal his sentence, contending that
the district court committed a factual error when it determined
that a variance sentence below the range was not warranted. We
dismiss the appeal.
As part of his plea agreement, Bowens waived his right to
appellate review of the reasonableness of a sentence within the
guideline range. In this circuit, “[a] sentence within the proper
Sentencing Guidelines range is presumptively reasonable.” United
States v. Allen, 491 F.3d 178, 193 (4th Cir. 2007); see Rita
v. United States, 127 S. Ct. 2456, 2462-69 (2007) (upholding
presumption of reasonableness for within-guidelines sentence).
This presumption can only be rebutted by showing that the sentence
is unreasonable when measured against the § 3553(a) factors.
United States v. Montes-Pineda, 445 F.3d 375, 379 (4th Cir. 2006).
By arguing that the court erred in rejecting his argument for a
variance sentence below the advisory guideline range, Bowens is
challenging the reasonableness of his within-guidelines sentence.
We conclude that Bowens waived his right to appeal his sentence on
this ground.
- 2 -
We 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 -