Full Opinion

Case: 25-51063 Document: 107-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals ____________ Fifth Circuit FILED No. 25-51063 November 4, 2026 Summary Calendar Thomas B. Plunkett, III ____________ Clerk United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, versus Robert Timothy Blake, Defendant—Appellant. ______________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:15-CR-66-1 ______________________________ Before Haynes, Graves, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. Per Curiam:* Robert Timothy Blake, federal prisoner # 46959-380, appeals the district court’s denial of his motions for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and for reconsideration. Blake contends that the district court abused its discretion in finding that he had not demonstrated extraordinary and compelling reasons warranting relief; contests the district court’s conclusion that he is addicted to child pornography; and argues that * This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5. Case: 25-51063 Document: 107-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/04/2026 No. 25-51063 the district court’s analysis of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors was based on false information introduced at the original sentencing hearing. Although Blake is a first-time offender, the presentence report (PSR) 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 Blake’s home, as well as images of children playing in the nude at a residence directly behind Blake’s home. The district court’s conclusion that Blake was addicted to child pornography was a reasonable inference from the evidence presented in the criminal proceedings and adequately justifies the denial of relief. See Chavez-Meza v. United States, 585 U.S. 109, 117-19 (2018). To the extent Blake challenges the facts used in his original sentencing hearing, such an argument is not appropriately raised in a § 3582(c)(1)(A) proceeding. See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011). At most, Blake’s arguments amount to a mere disagreement with the district court’s balancing of the § 3553(a) sentencing factors, which does not warrant reversal. See United States v. Chambliss, 948 F.3d 691, 694 (5th Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED. See id. at 693-94; United States v. Jackson, 27 F.4th 1088, 1093 n.8 (5th Cir. 2022). Blake’s motions for the appointment of counsel and to supplement the record on appeal are DENIED. 2