NOT FOR PUBLICATION
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`
`FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
` Plaintiff - Appellee,
`
` v.
`
`LARISA SAKHANSKIY,
`
` Defendant - Appellant.
` No. 24-7812
`D.C. No.
`2:13-cr-00160-TLN-AC-2
`
`MEMORANDUM*
`
`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).
`FILED
`
`JUN 30 2025
`
`MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
`U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` 2 24-7812
`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).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`