Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew James WOOD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-05
Citations: 140 F. App'x 629
Docket Number: No. 04-3149
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Matthew James WOOD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WOLLMAN, BRIGHT, and BYE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 140
Pages: 629–629

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.