Court Opinion

ID: 9371547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-16 17:00:23.9394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:28.473340
License: Public Domain

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                                  [Unpublished]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
the district court 1 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.
                                  -2-
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.
                      ______________________________

                                         -3-