United States v. Wood ( 2008 )

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-2-2008
USA v. Wood
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 07-3741
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Wood" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 419.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/419
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
__________
No. 07-3741
_____________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
SHAHEED WOOD,
Appellant
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(No. 04-cr-00431)
Before: Scirica, McKee and Smith,
Circuit Judges
Submitted pursuant to Third circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 8, 2008
Opinion filed: October 2, 2008
OPINION
McKee, Circuit Judge
Shaheed Wood appeals a sentence that was imposed following his conviction for
conspiracy to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery in violation of 18 U.S.C. §
1951(a) and aiding and abetting interference with interstate commerce as well as using
and carrying a firearm during, and in relation to, a crime of violence in violation of 18
1
U.S.C. § 924(c). For the reasons that follow, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.
We previously set forth the factual background of this appeal when we affirmed
the judgment of conviction on Wood’s direct appeal. See U. S. v. Shaheed Wood, 486
F.3d 781 (3d Cir.2007). Although we affirmed the conviction, we reversed the upward
adjustment the court had imposed pursuant to U.S.S.G. §3A1.2, and we remanded to the
trial court for a determination of whether Wood’s juvenile adjudications resulted in “a
juvenile sentence to confinement of at least 60 days,” pursuant to U.S.S.G. §4A1.1(b)
and U.S.S.G. §4A1.2(d)(2)(A).
Wood now challenges the sentence imposed on remand arguing that the privileges
and opportunities he was afforded while confined at the juvenile facilities he was
sentenced to were such that he did not serve a “juvenile confinement” under the
sentencing guidelines. However, despite the fact that Woods was afforded such liberties
as home visits and participation in educational programs, we do not accept his contention
that his juvenile sentences fall short of the level of restriction required for “confinement”
under the Guidelines. The rehabilitative nature of his stay at those juvenile institutions
does not negate the reality that he was nevertheless sentenced to “confinement” for a
period in excess of sixty (60) days and that those sentences constitute “juvenile
confinement” pursuant to U.S.S.G. 4A1.2(d)(2)(A). United States v. Davis, 929 F2d 930
(3d. Cir. 1991), See also United States v. Williams, 291 F3d 1180, 1194 (9th Cir. 2002)
(collecting cases). Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of sentence.
2