United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit 

___________________________

No. 22-2091

___________________________ 

United States of America

 Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Joshua Wood

 Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Ft. Smith

____________ 

Submitted: November 14, 2022

Filed: February 16, 2023

[Unpublished] 

____________ 

Before BENTON, KELLY, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Between 2012 and 2017, Joshua Wood avoided $98,918.61 in taxes, primarily 

by completing false W-4s that claimed exemptions for which he was ineligible and 

by directing payroll personnel to refrain from withholding taxes from his paychecks. 

Wood pled guilty to one count of tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, and 
-2- 

the district court1 sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 14 months. Wood 

appeals, claiming his sentence is substantively unreasonable. We affirm. 

The presentence investigation report, which the district court adopted,

calculated Wood’s sentencing guidelines range as 12 to 18 months. The report

identified Wood’s numerous medical ailments, including stage-4 kidney disease and 

end-stage renal disease. The report noted that Wood was previously on liver and 

kidney transplant lists from which he was removed “due to medical noncompliance” 

and failure to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine. After fully considering the parties’ 

arguments and pertinent sentencing factors, the district court imposed a 14-month 

term of imprisonment and recommended that the Bureau of Prisons place Wood at 

a facility capable of providing care for his medical conditions. 

We review the substantive reasonableness of a sentence for an abuse of 

discretion, considering all of the circumstances and any variance from the guidelines 

range. See United States v. Hill, 552 F.3d 686, 693 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Gall v. 

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007)). An abuse of discretion occurs only “if the 

district court fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant 

weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only 

the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those 

factors.” United States v. Staten, 990 F.3d 631, 636 (8th Cir. 2021) (per curiam)

(citation omitted). 

Wood’s sentence was within the advisory guidelines range and is 

presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625, 634 (8th Cir. 

2010) (citation omitted). Here, the district court appropriately considered the 

seriousness of Wood’s particular offense conduct and the need to deter white collar 

offenders. See United States v. Ture, 450 F.3d 352, 357-58 (8th Cir. 2006) (citations 

omitted) (noting tax evaders’ sentences should account for the need to provide 

1

The Honorable P. K. Holmes, III, United States District Judge for the 

Western District of Arkansas.
-3- 

general deterrence). While defense counsel argued for a sentence of home detention 

or probation to permit Wood to continue to obtain care from Johns Hopkins Hospital, 

given the broad sentencing discretion afforded district courts, the district court did 

not abuse its discretion by not giving more weight to Wood’s health conditions. See

United States v. Anderson, 618 F.3d 873, 883 (8th Cir. 2010) (“The district court 

may give some factors less weight than a defendant prefers or more to other factors 

[without] justify[ing] reversal.” (citation omitted)). Because the district court 

considered the pertinent sentencing factors and provided a reasoned basis for its 

within-guidelines sentence, the sentence is not substantively unreasonable. 

We affirm the district court’s judgment.

______________________________