ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BAIL PENDING APPEAL

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

Before the court is Defendant Alena Aleykina's ("Defendant") Motion for Bail Pending Appeal. Mot., ECF No. 167. The United States ("Government") opposes Defendant's Motion. Opp'n, ECF No. 168. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with a nine-count superseding indictment on October 20, 2016, ECF No. 7. Following a two-week trial in June 2018, the jury convicted Defendant of eight counts: six counts of subscribing to a false tax return, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1); one count of theft of public money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641; and one count of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1519. ECF No. 108. The Court sentenced Defendant to a 51-month term of imprisonment in October 2018. ECF No. 144.

II. DISCUSSION

"In general, persons convicted of federal crimes are not eligible for release pending appeal unless a court finds" the Defendant has satisfied the conditions within 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). United States v. Garcia, 340 F.3d 1013, 1015 (9th Cir. 2003). The Court must find that (A) the Defendant "is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released" and (B) the Defendant's "appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in—(i) reversal, (ii) an order for a new trial, (iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process." 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1).

Although the Court finds that Defendant is not likely to pose a flight risk or endanger others if released, the Court also finds that Defendant's appeal does not present a substantial question of law or fact. Defendant poses three questions on appeal: (1) whether it was error to exclude testimony of Defendant's husband concerning her behavior and mental state, (2) whether it was error to allow the Government's summary expert witness to opine that Defendant's marital separation was fraudulent, and (3) whether it was error to deny Defendant's request for a unanimity instruction on Counts 1-6. Mot. at 4-11. Not one of these three questions is "fairly debatable" or "fairly doubtful." United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 1985). Indeed, the evidence presented at trial by the United States of Defendant's guilt on all eight counts was overwhelming and the jury so found. Because she has failed to raise a substantial question of law or fact on appeal, Defendant cannot show that her appeal is likely to result in reversal, a new trial, or a reduced sentence.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.