Compassionate release denial in United States v. Blake

On November 4, 2026, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Robert Timothy Blake's motions for compassionate release and for reconsideration. The opinion is not designated for publication. Read the decision (PDF).

What happened

Mr. Blake is federal prisoner number 46959-380. He appealed from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The district court case is No. 5:15-CR-66-1. Judges Haynes, Graves, and Ramirez decided the appeal on the summary calendar. The opinion is per curiam, which means the panel wrote it together rather than under one judge's name.

He asked the court of appeals to undo the district court's denial of relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). That statute lets a federal judge shorten a prison term for extraordinary and compelling reasons, the law's phrase for reasons that are unusual and serious enough, after the judge considers the sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).

The opinion says he made three arguments. He said the district court abused its discretion when it found he had not shown extraordinary and compelling reasons. He contested the district court's conclusion that he is addicted to child pornography. He argued that the district court's analysis of the § 3553(a) factors was based on false information introduced at the original sentencing hearing.

What the court decided

The court said he is a first-time offender. It then described the presentence report. That report reflects that 602 image files and 205 video files involving child pornography were discovered on his digital devices pursuant to a search warrant. Federal agents also discovered pictures of young children at the bus stop in front of his home, as well as images of children playing in the nude at a residence directly behind his home.

The court held that the district court's conclusion that he was addicted to child pornography was a reasonable inference from the evidence presented in the criminal proceedings, and that this inference adequately justifies the denial of relief. It cited Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 117-19 (2018).

To the extent he challenges the facts used in the original sentencing hearing, the court said that argument is not appropriately raised in a § 3582(c)(1)(A) proceeding. It cited United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011).

The court said that, at most, his arguments amount to a mere disagreement with the district court's balancing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, which does not warrant reversal. It cited United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020).

The order of the district court is affirmed. The opinion cites Chambliss at 693-94 and United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022), for that result. The court denied his motions for the appointment of counsel and to supplement the record on appeal.

The opinion's footnote states: "This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5." Fifth Circuit Rule 47.5.4 says unpublished opinions issued on or after January 1, 1996, are not precedent, except under the doctrine of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case (or similarly to show double jeopardy, notice, sanctionable conduct, entitlement to attorney's fees, or the like).

What this means for a motion

• The denial in this case stayed in place. The court of appeals said the district court's inference from the criminal-case evidence adequately justified that denial.
• A challenge to the facts used at the original sentencing hearing was not a compassionate release argument in this appeal. The opinion says that kind of argument is not appropriately raised in a § 3582(c)(1)(A) proceeding.
• Disagreeing with how the judge weighed the § 3553(a) factors did not get the denial reversed. That is the limit the opinion states. It does not say how another judge must weigh those factors in another case.
• This opinion is unpublished and is not precedent, except in the narrow situations Rule 47.5.4 names. It decides Mr. Blake's appeal. It does not bind a later case.

The eligibility page explains extraordinary and compelling reasons. The statute page walks through how § 3582(c)(1)(A) and the § 3553(a) factors fit together.

If you want us to review how these rules might apply to a federal case, Request a consultation.