Court Opinion

ID: 9965118
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-01 18:00:41.825143+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:43.114371
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        MAY 1 2024
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                       No. 23-2092
                                                D.C. No. 2:13-cr-00160-TLN-AC-2
             Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
LARISA SAKHANSKIY,

             Defendant - Appellant.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 22, 2024**

Before:      CALLAHAN, LEE, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

      Larisa Sakhanskiy appeals pro se from the district court’s order denying her

motion for a sentence reduction 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. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (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).
      Sakhanskiy sought compassionate release on the basis of her serious medical

conditions, the COVID-19 pandemic, the alleged lack of adequate medical care at

her facility, and her rehabilitation and minimum-security status. The district court

concluded that (1) Sakhanskiy’s medical conditions did not amount to

extraordinary and compelling circumstances because the conditions did not

“substantially diminish [Sakhanskiy’s] ability to provide self-care and the BOP is

capable of adequately treating those conditions,” and (2) relief was unwarranted in

light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, including Sakhanskiy’s statutory minimum

sentence and the serious nature of her offenses, which resulted in over $500,000 in

loss and placed first responders in danger. We find no abuse of discretion in the

court’s conclusions, which are supported by the record. See United States v.

Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (a district court abuses its

discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the

record).

      We decline to consider Sakhanskiy’s remaining arguments for a sentence

reduction, which she raises for the first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587

F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      All pending motions are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                          2                                    23-2092