United States v. Nadia Kuzmenko ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 11 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 21-10111
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. Nos.
2:11-cr-00210-JAM-2
v. 2:11-cr-00210-JAM
NADIA KUZMENKO, AKA Nadia Reyes,
MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 9, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District
Judge.
Nadia Kuzmenko was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment in 2015 for wire
fraud. In March 2021, she moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C.
*
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).
***
The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the
District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.
§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the motion, concluding that Kuzmenko
failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting relief,
and, even if she had, reduction of her sentence was not appropriate under the
sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see
United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), we affirm.
A district court may base its denial of a motion for compassionate release
solely on the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th
Cir. 2021). The district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so here. The court
accurately noted that Kuzmenko had served only 14.5 months of a 96-month
sentence and concluded that granting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief “at this point would
undermine the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors by minimizing the original
sentence’s deterrent effect, failing to provide just punishment, and failing to promote
respect for the law.” Moreover, the same district judge presided over Kuzmenko’s
5-week trial, and had sentenced Kuzmenko to a below-Guidelines term after
carefully analyzing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970,
977 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that a minimal explanation for denying a § 3582(c)(2)
motion from the sentencing judge suffices in light of “the deference due to the
judge’s professional judgment and the context of a particular case”).
AFFIRMED.
2