United States v. Jarvis Bowens

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: October 6, 2025
• Docket: 24-13005
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 24-13005 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/06/2025 Page: 1 of 2

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-13005 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus

JARVIS BERNARD BOWENS, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 2:21-cr-00076-TPB-KCD-1 ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ABUDU, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: The government’s motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant to the appeal waiver in the Appellant’s plea agreement is GRANTED. See United States v. Bushert, 997 F.2d 1343, 1345, 1350–51 (11th Cir. USCA11 Case: 24-13005 Document: 47-1 Date Filed: 10/06/2025 Page: 2 of 2

2 Opinion of the Court 24-13005

1993) (holding that we will enforce sentence appeal waivers if they are made “knowingly and voluntarily”); United States v. Boyd, 975 F.3d 1185, 1192 (11th Cir. 2020) (noting that the “touchstone” for assessing if a sentence appeal waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily is whether it was clearly conveyed to the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal under most circumstances); United States v. Weaver, 275 F.3d 1320, 1333 (11th Cir. 2001) (con- cluding that an appeal waiver was enforceable where the court ref- erenced the waiver provision during the plea colloquy and the de- fendant confirmed that he understood the waiver provision and en- tered into it voluntarily and freely). Here, it is clear from the plea agreement and Rule 11 collo- quy that Bowens knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to ap- peal his sentence on any ground, including the ground that the dis- trict court erred in determining the applicable guidelines range pur- suant to the Sentencing Guidelines, except (a) the ground that the sentence exceeded the applicable guidelines range as determined by the court pursuant to the Sentencing Guidelines; (b) the ground that the sentence exceeded the statutory maximum penalty; or (c) the ground that the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Bowens’s challenge on appeal—that the district court erred by imposing a two-level guidelines enhancement— does not fall within any of these exceptions, and we thus enforce the appeal waiver according to its terms. APPEAL DISMISSED.