Case ID: f-appx_140/html/0629-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Matthew James WOOD, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 04-3149.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted May 9, 2005.
    Decided Aug. 5, 2005.
    Richard D. Westphal, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Rock Island, IL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Matthew James Wood, Yankton, SD, pro se.
    Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

The district court violated the Sixth Amendment by applying a mandatory version of the federal sentencing guidelines, which required it to enhance the defendant’s sentence beyond the statutory maximum based on facts not admitted to by him nor found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Booker, — U.S. -, -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). The defendant raised and preserved the error at the time of sentencing and we cannot say this constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Haidley, 400 F.3d 642 (8th Cir.2005). We therefore vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.