Case: 21-10664 Document: 00516135554 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/17/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 21-10664 December 17, 2021
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
United States of America,
Plaintiff—Appellee,
versus
Robert Erik Tovar,
Defendant—Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:14-CR-471-1
Before Wiener, Dennis, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Robert Erik Tovar, federal prisoner # 49118-177, pleaded guilty in
2015 to possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance, and the
district court sentenced him, as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1,
below the advisory guidelines range to 120 months of imprisonment and a
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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: 21-10664 Document: 00516135554 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/17/2021
No. 21-10664
three-year term of supervised release. Tovar appeals the denial by the district
court of his motion for a compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
We review a district court’s decision denying compassionate release
for abuse of discretion. United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 693 (5th Cir.
2020). Although we have “not said what constitutes an abuse of discretion
for compassionate release claims under § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) of the First Step
Act,” an abuse of discretion in the analogous § 3582(c)(2) context is shown
if the district court “bases its decision on an error of law or a clearly
erroneous assessment of the evidence.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citation omitted).
Tovar argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for
compassionate release because it did not properly weigh the 18 U.S.C.
§ 3553(a) sentencing factors and the import of Amendment 798 to the
Sentencing Guidelines. However, his arguments amount to a mere
disagreement with the court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) factors, which “is
not a sufficient ground for reversal.” Chambliss, 948 F.3d at 694.
The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
2