### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 20346

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff

–

Appellee

versus ODIS LEE JACKSON,
Defendant

– Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas No. 4:02

- CR

- 373

- 4

Before DAVIS , SMITH , and COSTA , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM : *

Odis Jackson was convicted of various drug

- related charges in 2003 and was sentenced to life in prison. He moved for resentencing under the First

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 5, 2019 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-20346 Document: 00515187486 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/05/2019No. 19

- 20346

2 Step Ac t of 2018, § 404, Pub. L. No. 115

- 391, 132 Stat. 5194, 5222 (2018)

. T he district court denied the motion. We remand for the limited pur pose of allow

ing the district court to explain why it did so , and w e retain jur isdiction as is customary for limited remands

. 1 The government opposed resentencing mainly on the ground that the Act didn ’ t affect the sen tence

. Without a hearing, t he district court denied the motion in an order stating only that “ [h]aving considered the defend ant ’ s motion for resentencing, the government ’ s response and the arguments and law therein, the Court orders that the defendant ’ s motion is . . . DENIED. ”
The reason for the denial is thus unknown

. The court might have thought that Jackson ’ s two

- count con viction wasn ’ t a “ covered offense ” under section 404(a). Alternatively, it might have believed the conviction was covered but denied resentencing as a matter of its discretion, since “ [n]othing in [sec

tion 404] shall be construed to require a court to reduce any sentence

. . . . ” § 404(c), 132 Stat. at 5222. Or there may be another reason. The reason pro

vided by a district court is often determinative of the standard of review on appeal. Though dist rict courts needn ’ t always explain why they have denied a motion , 2 “ meaningful review ” is possible here only with “ a statement of reasons for the denial. ” 3 Absent such a statement , we can only guess why the motion

1 E.g. , M.D. v. Abbott , 929 F.3d 272, 283 (5th Cir. 2019)

. 2 E.g. , Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co. , 868 F.2d 1428, 1436 (5th Cir. 1989) ( “[W]e decline to impose an inflexible rule requiring district courts to file a written order explaining their decisions

. ” ).

3 United States v. Insaulgarat , 280 F. App ’ x 367, 369 (5th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) ; accord United States v. Yett , 457 F. App ’ x 360, 362 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (ordering a limited remand because “ [w] e [were] unable to di scern from the record whether the district court simply exercised its discretion to conclude that such a reduction was appropriate in this Case: 19-20346 Document: 00515187486 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/05/2019No. 19

- 20346

3 was denied, and we decline “ to speculate about the possible reason s
. ” Insaul

garat , 280 F. App ’ x at 369

. We thus REMAND for the limited pur pose of allow

ing the court to explain its reasons for the denial

. In so doing, w e retain juris

diction. See Abbott , 929 F.3d at 283

. 4

case, or whether, as Yett contends, the court believed it lacked authority to reduce the sen

tence further ” ); United States v. Crocker , 228 F. App ’ x 493, 49 4 (5th Cir. 2007) (per curiam) ( “ Given the lack of clarity in the record, we remand to the district court for the limited pur

pose of explaining its sentencing decision in light of these concerns

. ” (emphasis removed)) ; see also In re Archer Directional Drilling Servs., L.L.C ., 630 F. App ’ x 327, 329 (5th Cir. 2016) (per curiam) ( “ [T] he lack of explanation makes it impossible for us to determine whether the district court clearly abused its discretion , which is required in order for us to decide whether to grant mandamus relief.

. . . Therefore, we remand for the limited purpose of requesting that the district court supplement its order. ” (citation removed)).

4 We place no time limit on the remand, c onfident that the conscientious district judge will give this matter priority knowing that Jackson’s liberty is at stake. Case: 19-20346 Document: 00515187486 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/05/2019