## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it

N o. 11

- 3873 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. J OS HUA V I DAL, D ef endant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 10 C R 618-1

—A my J . St . Eve, Judge
.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 12, 2012

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 31, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, R OV NER, a nd W OO D , C ircu it Judges. W OO D , C ircu it Judge. J o sh ua Vi dal was a m embe r ofa g a ngtha twa s acti ve i n the c o c a i ne b us i ne s s . He ma de the m i sta ke ofworking with an underco ve r FB Io ffi cer i n a s chem e t o rob a “st ash ho use.” In ti m e, he was charg ed w i th and pl ead ed guil ty to f our counts re l ate d to th at p lan n ed c rim e. T h is a p p ea l co n c er n s o n ly h is sente nce, wh ich was w i thi n the ra nge r eco m m ended by th e S en te nc i ngGui del i ne s. The di st r i ctc o ur t er r ed, he2 N o. 11

- 3873
assert s, by fail ing ad eq u a t ely to con side r his prim ary ar gum ent u n d er18 U

. S. C. § 3 553( a)

— h is p sy c h iat ric history. A lth o u gh w e recogn ize that th e d istri ct cou rt m ay yetco m e t o t h e sa m e co ncl usi on a fterta ki ng a c l ose r l oo k a t thi s a rgum ent a nd pro vi ding an expl anati on tha t is su ffi ci ent forappel l ate r evi ew , i t i s a l so possibl e that i t m ay not. W e ca nnot ba se ou r re vi ew o n specul ati on. W e thus re m and fo r furtherpro ceedi ngs.

I Vidal, a m em bero fthe Tw o- Si x str eet g an g, was ar re ste d i n J uly20 10 aftera n FB Ii nfo rm ant r ecr uit ed hi m to r ob a co cai ne st ash house

. Vi dal too k the l ead i n pl an nin g the r o bb ery, a ss embl i nga t ea m o ff o ur coco nspir ato rs and ass uri ng the underc over FBI o ffi cer th athe ha d c o m pl et ed si m i l arr o bb er i es i n the pa sta nd coul d easi l y s el lal lo fthe coca i ne t h at the c re w expecte d to r ec o ve r . On th e dayo fth e p lanned r o bb ery, Vi dala nd hi s c re w as sem bl ed i n a par ki ng l ot w i th thr ee l oaded pis tol s a nd a ro l lo fpacking ta pe . T h ey w er e a rr est ed as they l eft the par ki ng l ot. Vidalwas eve ntua lly charg ed w i th, and ple aded gui l ty t o , the f o l l o wi ng f o ur c o un t s : ( 1 ) c o ns pi r a c y t o poss ess w i th i ntent to dist ribute fi ve kilo gram s o r m or e o f coca i ne, i n vi ol ati on o f21 U .S.C . § 84 6; ( 2) at tem pt to p ossess w ith inten t to distribu te fi ve kil og r a m s or m ore ofcoc aine, i n vi ol ati on o f21 U

. S. C. § 8 46; ( 3) a H obbs A ct v i ol ati on co m m i tte d by a tte m pti n g to rob the ho use a nd s t e a lthe c o c a i ne a nd c o c a i ne p ro ceeds, s e e 1 8 U. S

. C. § 1 951( a) ; and ( 4) poss ess i on o fa fi re ar m i n furthe ra nceN o. 11

- 3873 3 ofa cri m e o fvi ol ence and drug tr affi cki ng cr i m e, pro hibited b y 18 U

. S. C

. § 924(c)(1) (A ). The proba ti on offi cer w ho prepar ed th e p re sente nce re port( PSR) cal cul ate d an offense l eve lo f35 , bas ed on th e 30 kil ogram s o f coca ine th at V idal beli eved w ere i nv ol ve d i n the c o ns pi r ac y ( th e amoun t to b e us ed i n the sting was appare n tl y s el ecte d by the FBIag ent) , se e U. S

. S

. G

. § 2 D1. 1( a) ( 5) , a f o ur - po i ntupwar d a dj us tment f orhi s l eader shi p ro l e in th e offe nse, se e id

. § 3B 1.1( a), and a thr ee- poi nt r educti on f orh is tim el y pl ea and acceptan ce o fr esponsibi l i ty, se e id

. § 3E1. 1. Com bi ned w i th Vidal ’ s ca teg or y I I Icr i m i nalhi sto ry, thi s o ffense l eve l yi el ded an a dvis or y s entence o f21 0 t o 262 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent o n c ou n ts I thro ugh I I I

. The PSR a l so note d th at V id al h ad a h ist o r y o fm e n ta l illn es s a n d h ad p re viousl y r ecei ved co unsel i ng f orbi pol ardi sor der a nd depr es si o n, b uttha t he ha d d ecl i ne d t o c o nt i nue t r ea tment for either d isorder. Vidaldi d not obj ect to the PS R, but he so ught a 180- m o nth s en te nc e ( th e m an dat o r y min i m um ) , whi chhe ar gue d w as war r an te d b y hi s di ffi cul t ch i l dho o d a nd p sy c h olo gic al p ro b lem s. D r. Su sa n P ea rls on , a fore n sic psy ch i at r i st, e va l ua te d Vi dalb efo r e se nt en cinga nd d iagnose d him w ith p osttrau m atic stress d isorder, bi po l ars pectrum di so r der, c l au st r o pho bi a, a nd dr ug and al coholabuse

. Dr. Pear l son op in ed that these d iso rd er s im p air ed V id al ’ s a b ility to m ak e ra tio n al d ec isi o ns . W hi l e Vi dalwas b einge va l ua te d b y Dr

. Pe ar l so n, he took h is pr escr ibed m edi cati ons and fe l t m or e peac eful. Dr. Pearl son sta ted that“the co m bi nati on o fsobri ety4 N o. 11

- 3873 and psychotr opi c m edi cati on o veran e xtended p er i od of t im e a n d t h e a b se n c e o f anan tis oc ial p er so n ali ty diso rder” p lac ed Vidalata l ower l i kel i hood o fr eo ffen di ngupo n h i s r el ea se fr o m pr i so n. The dis tr i ct c ourtad opted the p robati on o ffi cer ’ s guidel i ne s ca l cul at i o ns an d se nt en ce d Vi dal to co nc ur r en t te r m s o f2 10 months o n c o unts I thr o ug h I I I, a nd a c o nsecu tive term of 60 m o n t h s o n cou nt I V ( th e m an d atory m inim um f or that offen se). Th e cou rt discu ssed Vid al’s behavi orexte nsi vel y, but al li t had to sa y ab out hi s psychol ogi calpro bl em s was thi s: “Ial so n ot e the m ental h ea lth iss u es th at you ap p ea r to st ru gg le w ith . C er ta in ly y o urdr ugabus e pr o bl em do es notg o wel lwi thy o ur m entalheal th i ssues . ” Other w i se, the cour t e m phasi zed Vidal ’ s l engthycrim i nalr eco rd, hi s hi sto ryo fvi ol ence, and the f act that he appare ntl y had be en undeter re d by th e t im e h e a lre ad y h ad sp en t in j ail.

II O n ap p eal, Vid al argue s o nly tha t the district cou rt er re d by f ai l i ng adequately t o c on si der hi s a rgum ent that hi s psyc hi atr i c i ssues warra nted a b el ow-gui del i nes se n t e n c e. A t s en te n c in g, V id al h ad h igh ligh te d D r. P ea rlson’ s v i ew t hat the co m bi nati on o fenf or ced so bri ety, psychotr opi c m edi cati on, and t h e absence o fanti soc i al pers on al i ty diso rderi nd i cate d a decr eas ed l i kel i hood th at he woul d r eo ffen d upo n hi s r el ea se from pri so n. T h e d ist ric t c ou rtm ad e n o re fer en c e t o an y of t h is in i ts fl eet i ng co m m en t ab out Vidal ’ s “ m entalheal th i ssues, ” a nd thus, he a rgues, ther e i s no w ay to knowN o. 11

- 3873 5 whethe r the c o ur t ade qua tely c o ns i der ed th i s g r o und o fmit i g at i o n. A sent en cing j ud ge m us t ad d ress a d efend an t’s pri nci pal ar gum ents i n m i ti gat i on. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Chapm an , 6 94 F

. 3d 90 8, 9 13

- 14 ( 7th Ci r . 20 12 )

. Evens o , “ th e j u d ge ’s f ai l ure to disc uss a n i m m ate ri alo r i nsubstanti al dispute re l ating to the properse ntence w oul d be a t w or st a har m l ess er ro r. ” U nited S t a tes v. C un nin gh a m , 429 F.3d 673 , 679 (7th C ir. 2005). A lthou gh t he district cou rt “need notr ai se eve ryco ncei vabl e i ssue on i ts own initi ati ve, . . . the cour t m ust a cknowle dge and res pond to any pr oper l y pr ese nted sent encin g a rgum ent which has co l or able le galm er i t a nd a f actualbas i s. ” U nited St at e s v. Begi n, 6 96 F. 3d 40 5, 4 11 ( 3d Ci r . 2 01 2)

. In U nited St at e s v. M i r anda, 505 F.3d 785 ( 7th Cir. 200 7 ), t h is cou rt appl i ed th atpr i nc i pl e when it re m an ded f o r r es en tencing i n a c ase wh er e the di str i ct c ourthad not ad d re ss ed th e d efe n d an t’s m en ta l-illne ss arg u m en t. Id. at7 92

. W e ha ve r equi r ed r es en te nc i ngb o thwhenthe dist ri ct c ourti s s i l ent about the defendant’s pri nci pal ar gum ent in m i ti gat i on, se e U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob e r t s on , 66 2 F .3d 87 1, 87 9-8 0 (7 th C ir. 20 11 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Vil l egas -M i r anda , 5 7 9 F

. 3d 798, 801 (7th Cir. 2009); Cunni ngh am , 429 F.3d at 679, an d w he n the d istri ct cou rt’s d iscus s io n i s so cu rsory tha t w e are un able to disce rn the c ourt ’ s r eas ons f orr ej ecting the ar gum ent, see U nited Sta tes v. Sch roed er, 536 F.3d 746 , 755-56 (7th C ir. 2008); M i r anda , 50 5 F

. 3d at 792. The o nl y que st i o n here is o n wha t si de o fthe l i ne th e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s s ta te m en t fa lls. A lth ou gh it ac kn ow l-6 N o. 11

- 3873 edg ed th atVi dalha d m en ta l

- he al thissu es, i ts s ta te m en t gi ves us no i nsi ght into the j ud ge’ s e val uati on o f that con d iti on. In d e e d , one cou ld infer si m p ly from the p arti ci pati on o fDr. Pear l son, a for en sic psychi atr i st, that the c ourt w as aw ar e that m entali l l ness m i ght ne ed to be c o ns i der ed. But mor e th antha t i s ne ede d: The m enti on o fa w or d i s no t the sa m e thi ng as a disc ussi on or an ex p la n a tion. Pa rticularly becau se D r. Pearlson ’s rep ort w en t beyon d de scribing V id a l’s m en tal disord ers and predic ted that h e is l ess l i kel y than the aver age perso n t o r e c i di v a t e , the r e wa s a n e e d fo r the di s t r i ct c ou rtto ex p lain w h y it t h ou gh t t h at t h e la tt er p oin t d id not j us tify a l i ghterse ntence. In shor t, thi s i s no t a cas e in w h ich the re cor d m ake s cl earthe cour t’ s r eas ons f or rej ecting the pro ffer ed ar gum ent, se e R ita v. U nited Sta tes , 551 U .S. 33 8, 35 7-5 8 (2 00 7); Sc hro eder, 5 3 6 F

. 3 d a t 75 5; M i r anda , 50 5 F

. 3d at 792. I t woul d a l so ha ve b ee n h el pfulf o r th e c ou r t to e xp lain w h y V id al’s p ar tic u la r m en ta l-h ea lth h ist or y d id not tem per som e o fthe cour t’ s ( valid ) concerns w i th spe ci fi c an d ge ne r alde te r r en ce . Vi dalg r ew up i n a vi ol ent, drug- i nfe ste d envi ro nm en t, bo uncing between hi s m othe r and his gr andm othe r. A t t i m es he witnes sed hi s m othe r bei ng be ate n, and at t im es he was subj ect to vi ol ent abuse hi m sel f

. H i s a l cohol i c st epfath er bea t hi m r egul ar l y a nd thr eat ened hi m w ith d eath. W hen he w as 14, he w as b e a t e n u p by a ri val gang m em ber, an d in 2001 he attem p ted to com m it su ici d e by ov erdo singo n Ty l en o l

. His m o th erf o und h i m i n t i m e, he w as tak en to a hospi tal, and ul ti m ate l y a d m i tte d to an i npati ent m ental

- heal th f aci l i ty, wh er e he w as diagnose dN o. 11

- 3873 7

w i th depres si on a nd pre scr ibed m edi cati on. H e s tay ed th e r e o n l y a w e e k, h o we v e r . H e h a s a t t e mp t e d s u i c i de on tw o a d d itio n a l oc c as ion s, on c e in 20 03 an d on c e in 2008. H e has al so experi enced r aci ng tho ughts, m oo d i ns t ab i l i t y, a n i nab i l i t y t o c o nc e nt r a t e , a nd s i mil ar s y mptom s. H e hea rs vo i ces, has cl austr ophobi a, and see s thi ngs o n the w al lm ove . R ec or d s f ro m th e v ar iou s in st itu tio n s a n d m en ta lh ea lth p ro f e s sio n als w h o h av e t re at ed V id al w er e a va ilabl e t o Dr. Pear l son and to the c ourt . T h e c ourthad al so been tol d about hi s pos i tive r esponse to tr eat m ent. Vi dal ’ s ar g um en t i n mi ti g at i o n was thus a s er i o us a nd w el l-d oc u m en te d on e t h at req u ire d th e c ou rt ’s s p ec ific at te nt i o n. Vidal ’ s s entence i s there f or e V A CA TED and the case i s R EMAND ED to the dist ri c t cour t forfurtherpro ceedi ngs co ns i st en t wi ththi s o pi ni o n.

1- 31- 13