United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 21-50576

Summary Calendar

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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 5, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 21-50576 Document: 00516307843 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 21-50576

2

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..

Case: 21-50576 Document: 00516307843 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2022
No. 21-50576

3

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.

Case: 21-50576 Document: 00516307843 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/05/2022