Court Opinion

ID: 9375011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 18:00:49.634062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:54.812504
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        FEB 24 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 22-10180

                Plaintiff-Appellee,             D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00023-JAM-1

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
KARI SONOVICH,

                Defendant-Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Eastern District of California
                    John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

                          Submitted February 14, 2023**

Before:      FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

      Kari Sonovich appeals from the district court’s order denying her renewed

motion for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United

States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.

      *
             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).
      Sonovich contends that the district court abused its discretion by concluding

that (1) her caretaking responsibilities and medical conditions, coupled with the

COVID-19 pandemic, did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for

release; and (2) compassionate release would undermine the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)

factors. We disagree. The district court reasonably concluded that, because

Sonovich was on home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and

Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, her circumstances did not rise to the level of

extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, regardless of any inconveniences

caused by her required programming under the CARES Act. Moreover, the court

reasonably concluded that release after just 10 months would not adequately reflect

the seriousness of the offense and would minimize the deterrent effect of her 27-

month sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief.

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 without support

in the record).

      AFFIRMED.

                                           2                                     22-10180