gno.law

United States v. Ruben Sanavia-Arellano

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 09-50392, 09-50425 · 2010-07-15 · Unpublished

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben SANAVIA-ARELLANO, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben Sanavia-Arrellano, Defendant-Appellant

Proceeding
appeal
Trial court
United States District Court for the Southern District of California
Trial judge
Larry Alan Burns (district judge)
Outcome
affirmed — AFFIRMED.
Area
criminal
Panel
Alfred T. Goodwin (author), Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Marbley

Analysis

No analysis yet. When one exists it is a model's reading of this opinion — the rulings it reviewed, whether it agrees with the court, and the authorities it checked — shown beside the court's own disposition, never in place of it. How analyses are made.

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 15 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50392 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01578-LAB-1 v. MEMORANDUM * RUBEN SANAVIA-ARELLANO, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 09-50425 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02572-W-1 v.

RUBEN SANAVIA-ARRELLANO,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 9, 2010 Pasadena, California Before: GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District Judge.** 1. Judge Burns committed no procedural error when sentencing Ruben Sanavia-Arellano (Sanavia-Arellano). Judge Burns properly considered the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Dewey, 599 F.3d 1010, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010)

(defining procedural error as “failing to calculate (or improperly calculating) the Guidelines range, treating the Guidelines as mandatory, failing to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence . . .”) (citation omitted).

2. Judge Burns did not primarily rely on Sanavia-Arellano’s most recent illegal reentry to impose sentence. Rather, Judge Burns focused on Sanavia- Arellano’s failure to keep his promises, i.e., his breach of trust. See United States v. Hammons, 558 F.3d 1100, 1104 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that at a revocation ** The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

Page 2 of 3 hearing, the sentencing court may impose a sentence for “breach of trust”)

(citations omitted).

3. Judge Whelan’s oral pronouncement at the revocation hearing was not clear and unambiguous. Therefore, the written judgment controls. See Fenner v. United States Parole Comm’n, 251 F.3d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 2001).

4. As clarified in United States v. Xinidakis, 598 F.3d 1213, 1217 (9th Cir. 2010), a district court judge has discretion to impose a sentence that runs concurrently or consecutively to a prior undischarged sentence.

AFFIRMED.

Page 3 of 3

Cites, in this corpus