Case: 21-50079 Document: 00516136106 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
December 17, 2021
No. 21-50079
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
David Aundra Straughn,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CR-3-1
Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Proceeding pro se, David Aundra Straughn, federal prisoner # 72866-
080, appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)
motion for compassionate release. Straughn contends that he has established
extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting a grant of compassionate
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-50079 Document: 00516136106 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2021
No. 21-50079
release. He also asserts that compassionate release is appropriate based on
consideration of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors. The
Government argues that, because Straughn is a danger to the community and
the § 3553(a) factors do not support his request for compassionate release,
the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion.
As an initial matter, to the extent that Straughn moves in this court for
compassionate release, his motion is DENIED, as we cannot rule on such a
motion in the first instance.
In its order denying the compassionate release motion, the district
court indicated that it had considered the submissions of the parties, and the
court’s file, including Straughn’s Presentence Report. However, the district
court failed to provide any discernible reasons for denying the compassionate
release motion. Although the district court’s ruling is reviewed under an
abuse of discretion standard, meaningful review is possible only with a
statement of reasons for the denial. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d
691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
Accordingly, we REMAND for the limited purpose of allowing the
district court to explain its reasons for the denial of the motion for
compassionate release. This court retains jurisdiction, as is customary for
limited remands. See, e.g., United States v. Gomez, 905 F.3d 347, 354-56 (5th
Cir. 2018). Upon entry of the district court’s explanation of its reasons for
denying the motion, this case shall be returned to this court, and the parties
will be allowed an opportunity for supplemental briefing.
2