## 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 [U npublished ]

____________ Before BENTON, KELLY, and E RICKSON, 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 w ith holding 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 court 1 sentenced him to a term of imprisonment of 14 months. Wood appeals

, claiming his sentence i s substantively unreasonable. We affirm.

T he 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 Prison s 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
di scretion, 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) ( quotin g 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 a dvisory guidelines range and is presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Deegan, 605 F.3d 625, 634 (8th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted)

. Here, t he district court appropriately considered the
seriousness of Wood’s parti cular 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)

. Wh ile 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.

W e affirm t he district court’s judgment.

______________________________