Case: 21-50576 Document: 00516307843 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 5, 2022
No. 21-50576 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
David Leon Suttle,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 7:07-CR-29-1
Before Davis, Jones, and Elrod, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Defendant-appellant David Leon Suttle appeals the district court’s
denial of his motion for compassionate release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1). This Court reviews a denial of a motion for 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-50576 Document: 00516307843 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 21-50576
release for abuse of discretion. 1 A district court abuses its discretion when its
decision is based on a legal error or clearly erroneous facts. 2
In a recent decision, United States v. Sauseda, this Court held that, to
allow meaningful appellate review over an order denying compassionate
release, the district court must provide “specific factual reasons” for its
decision, unless we can infer those reasons from the record. 3 When the order
itself lacks a factual explanation, we can look, for example, to transcripts from
an earlier sentencing hearing. 4 But if the sentencing judge was not the same
judge as the one deciding the motion for compassionate release, those
transcripts fail to illuminate the reasoning behind the order on compassionate
release. 5
The district court’s analysis of Suttle’s motion, in full, was as follows:
“After considering the applicable factors provided in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and
the applicable policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission, the
Court DENIES the Defendant’s Motion on its merits.” This order is
materially identical to the order issued in Sauseda. 6 Also, as in Sauseda, a
1
United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir. 2020).
2
Id.
3
United States v. Sauseda, No. 21-50210, 2022 WL 989371, at *2 (5th Cir. Apr. 1,
2022). Although Sauseda is not “controlling precedent,” it “may be [cited as] persuasive
authority.” Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 n.7 (5th Cir. 2006) (citing 5th Cir. R.
47.5.4).
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
The sole distinction between this case and Sauseda is that, here, the Government
filed an opposition to the defendant’s motion for compassionate release. Cf. id. (noting that
“the Government did not object or otherwise file any response.”). But in this case, the
district court did not adopt the Government’s reasoning, or otherwise indicate that the
Government’s arguments provided the “specific factual reasons” for its decision. Id..
2
Case: 21-50576 Document: 00516307843 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 21-50576
different judge presided over the sentencing, leaving us without any basis to
infer the district court’s reasoning from the record. 7 Because we cannot
determine the “specific factual reasons” behind the district court’s decision,
we have no meaningful basis to exercise our appellate review over Suttle’s
motion for compassionate release. 8
Accordingly, we VACATE the district court’s order denying
Suttle’s motion for compassionate release and REMAND for
reconsideration consistent with this opinion.
7
See id.
8
Id.
3