United States v. Sakhanskiy

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 1 2024 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 23-2092 D.C.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