NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 6 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 20-10391
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:11-cr-00210-JAM-1
v.
VERA KUZMENKO, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 4, 2021**
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and HAWKINS and McKEOWN, Circuit
Judges.
Vera Kuzmenko appeals from the district court’s order denying her motion
for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and 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).
We review § 3582(c)(1) sentence reduction decisions for abuse of discretion.
United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021). The district court abuses
its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support in the
record. United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018).
Kuzmenko contends that she qualifies for compassionate release because her
health conditions, e.g., obesity, hypertension, and sleep apnea, put her at an
increased risk of severe complications or death if she contracts COVID-19. In
assessing a § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) motion, courts consider (1) whether “extraordinary
and compelling reasons warrant such a [sentence] reduction”; and (2) “the factors
set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable.” 18 U.S.C. §
3582(c)(1)(A)(i).
Here, the district court conducted a complete review of Kuzmenko’s motion
on the merits, specifically considering the scope of the harm caused by Kuzmenko
and that she has only served 60 months of her 168-month prison sentence, and
concluded that reducing her sentence “would undermine the 18 U.S.C. § 3553[(a)]
sentencing factors by minimizing the original sentence’s deterrent effect and failing
to protect the public from the possibility of further crimes by [Kuzmenko].” See
United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th Cir. 2021) (district court need not
make “an explicit ‘extraordinary and compelling’ finding before denying the [§
2
3582(c)(1)(A)(i)] motion on account of the § 3553(a) factors” (emphasis in
original)). Accordingly, there was no abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED.
3