# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or 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* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4.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: 05/05/2022No. 21

- 50576

2 release for abuse of discretion. 1 A district co urt 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 reason s from the record. 3 W hen 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 t he 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 t he 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 State s 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.”). B ut 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: 05/05/2022No. 21

- 50576

3 different judge presided over the sentencing, leaving us without any basis to
infe r 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 i d.

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