NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. MALIA ARCIERO,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 21

- 10177
D.C. No. 1:13

- cr - 01036

- SOM

- 1
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Susan O. Mollway, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 1 4 , 2021 * *
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ , Circuit Judges. Malia Arciero appeals pro se from the district court’s orders denying her
motion s for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) and for
reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. First, the district court did not err by finding that Arciero’s motion to

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

DEC 16 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 21

- 10177

reconsider was untimely as to the court’s previous orders denying Arciero’s post

judgment motions for an order directing the government to produce purported Brady material and for re cusal. The reconsideration motion, filed on June 14, 2021, was filed more than two months after the entry of these orders , and the
district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the motion as untimely under the applicable federal and local rules

. See United States v. Warren , 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979) ( “Only in rare cases will we question the exercise of discretion in connection with the application of local rules.” )

. Accordingly , we decline t o consider Arciero’s other allegations of error by the district court with regard to the Brady and recusal orders. Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Arciero’s motions for compassionate release and for reconsideration of the district court’s denial of compassionate release

. See United States v. Aruda , 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021)

. The record reflects that the district court considered Arciero’s
chronic medical conditions, lack of violent history, and efforts at post

- se ntencing rehabilitation, but concluded that she had not established extraordinary and

compe lling circumstances warrant ing relief , given her relatively young age, the low infection rate at her facility, and her inconsistent explanations for why she
decline d to be vaccin ated . The court also found that a reduced sentence was not
warranted under the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors, including the3 21

- 10177

serious ness of the underlying conviction, Arciero’s history of untruthfulness to the

court regarding her all egations of abuse by a government agent , and the fact that she had only served about half of her sentence

. Finally, the court concluded that Arciero’s request for reconsideration was not accompanied by any new evidence.
The district court’s conclusions a re supported by the record, and it did not abuse its discretion in denying Arciero’s motions. See United States v. Robertson , 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or with out support in the record)

. AFFIRMED

.