United States v. Margaret Davis, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 16131

Margaret Davis pleaded guilty to mail fraud and money laundering and faced a below-guidelines sentence; the plea agreement allowed no higher than 41 months with the right to appeal certain issues.
Davis diverted approximately $377,000 of roughly $1,062,000 obtained from Illinois state agencies over about 3.5 years through checks to self and others, conflicted interests, and falsified records.
Her mental health history includes bipolar disorder diagnosed in 2007, multiple hospitalizations for suicidal ideation, mania, depression, and neuropsychological distress prior to sentencing.
The presentence report noted potential relevance of mental health to departure under USSG § 5H1.3 and possible adjustment under § 5K2.13, and that § 3553(a) could justify non-guideline sentencing given her history.
Davis submitted a lengthy sentencing memorandum with extensive mental health records and expert opinions urging consideration of her condition as a mitigating factor.
The district court gave a 41-month sentence, expressly addressing Davis’s mental and physical health and ordering ongoing psychiatric treatment as a condition of probation; Davis appealed alleging procedural error in not adequately considering mitigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court adequately considered Davis's mental-health mitigation argument.	Davis argues the court failed to address her mental-health mitigation on the record.	The court considered Davis's mental health and gave a reasoned basis for its decision.	Yes; court adequately considered and rejected the mitigation argument.
Whether the district court provided an adequate explanation for its mitigation ruling given the record.	The discussion was too brief to show consideration of meritorious arguments.	Brief discussion suffices when the court reviewed the record and addressed key factors.	Yes; the court’s brief but permeating discussion satisfied the requirement.

United States v. Baker, 755 F.3d 515 (7th Cir. 2014) (requires discussion of mitigating arguments with a reasoned basis for the sentence)
United States v. Chapman, 694 F.3d 908 (7th Cir. 2012) (limits on the level of mitigation discussion required)
United States v. Donelli, 747 F.3d 936 (7th Cir. 2014) (mandates consideration of defendant's mitigation arguments on the record)
United States v. Cunningham, 429 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2005) (weighs necessity of addressing principal mitigation arguments)
United States v. Spiller, 732 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2013) (explains sufficiency of explanation to show consideration of mitigation)
United States v. Starko, 735 F.3d 989 (7th Cir. 2013) (court’s explanation need not be lengthy to be adequate)
United States v. Stinefast, 724 F.3d 925 (7th Cir. 2013) (brief discussion can be sufficient to show consideration)
United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345 (7th Cir. 2010) (acknowledges mitigation arguments can be implicit yet adequate)
United States v. Poetz, 582 F.3d 835 (7th Cir. 2009) (total record supports consideration and implicit rejection when appropriate)
United States v. Poulin, 745 F.3d 796 (7th Cir. 2014) (recites standard for evaluating sentencing arguments on appeal)