Did the Fourth Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) limitations and needlessly overturn a state death sentence on an insubstantial premise that Allen's mental health evidence was not afforded 'meaningful consideration and effect'

QUESTION PRESENTED In February 2005, Respondent Quincy J. Allen pled guilty to two murders in South Carolina. The following month a bench trial for capital sentencing began and spanned 10 days. Allen presented mental health evidence that included a diagnosis of schizophrenia and an eating disorder by history. Allen’s counsel argued the judge should consider that Allen was mentally ill at the time of the crime and less culpable. South Carolina does not require reported findings for statutory or non-statutory mitigation. But, during sentencing, the judge confirmed that he had considered the mental health evidence — the testimony and reports — and even named the experts. The judge sentenced Allen to death. Allen’s sentence withstood detailed review until a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit found in 2022 that, though the sentencing judge mentioned the schizophrenia evidence, he failed to mention the eating disorder; thus, he failed to give “meaningful consideration and effect” to Allen’s evidence and it was unreasonable for the state post-conviction court to find otherwise. The question presented is: Did the Fourth Circuit violate 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) limitations and needlessly overturn a state death sentence on an insubstantial premise that Allen’s mental health evidence was not afforded “meaningful consideration and effect” when the judge stated at sentencing that he had considered all the mental health evidence but did not explicitly reference Allen’s eating disorder? ii STATEMENT OF