An above guideline sentence in a revocation proceeding is upheld where it is based on the past conduct of a defendant who has significant mental health issues.  

Mario Adams was charged with being a felon in possession of a firearm. He had a long history of mental health issues and was twice found incompetent to stand trial on the firearm charge. He pleaded guilty to the charge after a third psychiatric evaluation determined he was competent. He was sentenced to 87 months imprisonment and a 36-month term of supervised release. United States v. Adams, --- F.4th --- (6th Cir. 2024). https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0275p-06.pdf 

 Mr. Adams was alleged to have violated supervised release by missing drug tests. The violation report referred to his continuing struggles with mental health and substance abuse and it also noted that he met the criteria for multiple mental health conditions. Further violations resulted in a 4-month placement in a halfway house, but he was removed from it due to his behavior.

 Ongoing violations of supervised release caused the district court to impose a new 90-day stay at the halfway house and a new 30-month term of supervised release. Mr. Adams showed significant improvement at the halfway house but left the facility shortly before the end of the 90 days. Probation officers could not locate him and had no contact with him for about a year. During that time, he was convicted in state court of felony assault and breaking and entering but he was not sentenced to incarceration.

 The district court revoked his supervised release based on the state crimes, leaving the halfway house, and not checking in with probation officers. The guideline range was 8 – 14 months but he was sentenced to the statutory maximum of 24 months. On appeal, Mr. Adams argued that his sentence was procedurally unreasonable because the district court used his mental illness to justify an upward variance.  

 The Sixth Circuit concluded that it did not have to decide the “important questions” Mr. Adams raised about whether an upward variance can be imposed to account for the danger a defendant may pose because of his mental health issues. Slip Op. at 9. The Court found that the sentence could be affirmed based on Mr. Adams’s conduct, leaving the halfway house, absconding from supervision, and committing new offenses especially one that involved violence. Although “some of his conduct may have stemmed, at least in part, from mental illness … a district court may rely on a defendant’s past conduct in determining the appropriate sentence.” Id.

 The Sixth Circuit noted that the district court reviewed Mr. Adam’s past conduct including prior supervised release violations and attempted treatment interventions, and it previously treated his mental health issues as a mitigating factor. As the Sixth Circuit saw it, the district court was not treating Mr. Adams’s mental health issues as an aggravating factor. Instead, the district court concluded that his mental illness could no longer be treated as a mitigating factor because of his recent conduct. Slip Op. at 10. In the Sixth Circuit’s view, the district court believed that a longer sentence was necessary “despite [Mr.] Adams’s mental health, not because of it …” Id. at 11 (emphasis original).

    One other point is worth noting. At the revocation sentencing, the district court made “passing references” to the earlier competency evaluation which explained the multiple diagnoses of Mr. Adams. Slip Op. at 11. Although the Sixth Circuit did not consider those references to be the basis of the sentencing decision, the Court cautioned against “reliance on statements by medical professionals in a competency evaluation as a basis for a sentencing aggravator …” Id. The Court pointed out that “competency reports are generally not meant to assess dangerousness, or any § 3553(a) factor.” Id.