USA v. Tovar, No. 21-10664 (5th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 December 17, 2021 No. 21-10664 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120 months of imprisonment and a * Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
