## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3581

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the Eastern * District of Arkansas. Robert Leonard Wood, Jr., also * known as Robert L. Wood, Jr., * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: March 15, 2006 Filed: March 22, 2006

___________ Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After Robert Leonard Wood tried to board a commercial flight while wearing a belt buckle with a concealed knife, the Government charged Wood with attempting to board an aircraft witha concealed weapon. See 49 U.S.C. § 46505(b)(1). At trial, an expert witness for the government testified the belt buckle knife was a dangerous offensive weapon called a “pus h dagger” and sold through sources such as “Soldier* The Honorable George Howard, Jr., Un ited States District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. -2- of Fortune” magazine. A jury convi cted Wood, and the district court * sentenced him to five years of probation. On appeal, Wood contends the district court committed error in refusing to excuse a juror whose father had died the ni ght before deliberations started. Although the juror indicated to the court that he n eeded to catch a flight at noon to attend the funeral, the juror stated he was ready and willing to deliberate. The court stated he would allow the juror to depart for the funeral at noon and proceed with an eleven member jury if the jury had not reached a verdict by that time. Neither the court nor the juror conveyed the plan to the jury, however. Wood’s assertion that the jury rushed to judgment to accommodate the ber eaved juror is pure speculation. The jury was silent during deliberation and returned a guilty verdict before the juror’s situation became a conflict. The jury’s quick verd ict alone does not indicate the jury felt coerced. United States v. Aldridge , 413 F.3d 829, 833 (8 thCir. 2005). Wood also argues the court should not have limited his cross-examination of the government witness. After the de fense questioned the witness about eight different government grants, the district court sustained the government’s objection to continued questioning about grants. Th e court allowed the de fense to show the potential for bias, and did not abuse its di scretion in limiting cross examination that was repetitive. See United States v. Drapeau , 414 F.3d 869, 875 (8 thCir. 2005). Woods next asserts the evidence was insufficient to convict him. We disagree. To obtain a conviction under § 46505(b)(1), the Government had to prove Wood attempted to board an aircraft, Wood had a concealed dangerous weapon on his person, and the weapon would have been accessible to Wood during the flight. United States v. Schier , No. 05-11838, 2006 WL 225247, at * __ (11 thCir. Jan. 31, 2006).-3- The evidence showed Wood was acting strangely when entering the airport’s screening area, set off alarms twice while walking through the metal detectors, set off the hand wand, held his hand over the knife in a su spicious manner when asked to unbuckle his belt, acted defiantly when caught , misrepresented he was in the military, remembered to leave another utility knife at home because he kne w it was a prohibited item, and failed to heed the numerous warn ing signs throughout th e airport. Thus, contrary to Wood’s assertion, the eviden ce showed he acted willfully or knowingly.

Last, we reject Wood’s last argument thatcumulative effect of the trial errors requires appellate relief. We cannot say “the case as a whole presents an image of unfairness that has resulted in the depriv ation of [Wood’s] constitutional rights, even though none of the claimed errors is itself su fficient to require reversal.” United States v. Riddle , 193 F.3d 995, 998 (8 thCir. 1999).
We thus affirm Wood’s conviction.

______________________________