United States v. Kari Sonovich ( 2023 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 24 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 22-10180
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 2:14-cr-00023-JAM-1
v.
MEMORANDUM*
KARI SONOVICH,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2023**
Before: FERNANDEZ, FRIEDLAND, and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Kari Sonovich appeals from the district court’s order denying her renewed
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 United
States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1281 (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).
Sonovich contends that the district court abused its discretion by concluding
that (1) her caretaking responsibilities and medical conditions, coupled with the
COVID-19 pandemic, did not constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for
release; and (2) compassionate release would undermine the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)
factors. We disagree. The district court reasonably concluded that, because
Sonovich was on home confinement under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and
Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, her circumstances did not rise to the level of
extraordinary and compelling reasons for release, regardless of any inconveniences
caused by her required programming under the CARES Act. Moreover, the court
reasonably concluded that release after just 10 months would not adequately reflect
the seriousness of the offense and would minimize the deterrent effect of her 27-
month sentence. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying relief.
See United States v. Robertson, 895 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018) (district court
abuses its discretion only if its decision is illogical, implausible, or without support
in the record).
AFFIRMED.
2 22-10180