hardship on her family, but found that these considerations were outweighed by the need for her sentence to re ughter has cared for her son with cancer for some time. Her son is not a minor. Cf. Schroeder, 536 F.3d at 750-51 (child was daycare age). Further, when Pilón was finally arrested for her crime, she was found in North Carolina (for medical reasons) far from her son in Illinois. The district court adequately considered Pilon’s mitigation arguments. See United States v. Diekemper, 604 F.3d 345, 355 (7th Cir.2010) (“the fact that the district court acknowledged this argument is dis-positive — as long as a sentencing court considers the arguments made in mitigation, even if implicitly and imprecisely, the sentence imposed will be found reasonable”); cf. Schroeder, 536 F.3d at 756 (<HOLDING>). Finally, Pilon’s arguments about her health
holding that a district courts rejection of an argument for an inappropriate reason was error holding that the defendants sentence for robbery was not inappropriate holding that an employee may establish that the legitimate reason for an employment decision offered by an employer is pretextual by showing by a preponderance of the evidence either that the discrim inatory reason was the true reason motivating the employers conduct or that the profferred legitimate reason was false holding that district court error was not clear error in denying petition for mandamus holding that a  2254 court was bound by the state courts rejection of the petitioners factual assertions that evidence was suppressed