NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 30 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-7812 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:13-cr-00160-TLN-AC-2 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 June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

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

third 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

* 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). United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2021), we affirm.1

Sakhanskiy contends the district court should have granted compassionate

release because of her serious medical conditions, the alleged lack of adequate

medical care at her new facility, the deterioration in her health, and her

rehabilitation and minimum risk for recidivism or violence. However, the record

supports the district court’s determination that Sakhanskiy’s medical conditions do

not “substantially diminish [Sakhanskiy’s] ability to provide self-care and the BOP

is capable of adequately treating those conditions.” The court therefore did not

abuse its discretion in concluding that Sakhanskiy lacked extraordinary and

compelling reasons. 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). Moreover, Sakhanskiy has not

shown any abuse of discretion in the court’s conclusion that, notwithstanding her

rehabilitative efforts and low recidivism score, the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors did

not support relief. See Keller, 2 F.4th at 1284.

AFFIRMED.

1 The government asserts that this appeal is untimely. Sakhanskiy responds that she mailed the notice of appeal immediately upon receiving the district court’s order. We do not resolve this dispute and instead proceed to the merits. See United States v. Sadler, 480 F.3d 932, 940 (9th Cir. 2007) (timeliness in a criminal case is not jurisdictional).

2 24-7812