From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Sanavia-Arellano

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 15, 2010
387 F. App'x 770 (9th Cir. 2010)

Opinion

Nos. 09-50392, 09-50425.

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2010.

Filed July 15, 2010.

George Manahan, Esquire, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Diego, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David Matthew Cole Peterson, Esquire, Trial, Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., San Diego, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01578-LAB-1.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, Thomas J. Whelan, District Judge, Presiding. D.C., No. 3:08-cr-02572-W-1.

Before: GOODWIN and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and MARBLEY, District Judge.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.


MEMORANDUM

The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, sitting by designation.

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 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.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Sanavia-Arellano

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jul 15, 2010
387 F. App'x 770 (9th Cir. 2010)
Case details for

U.S. v. Sanavia-Arellano

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ruben SANAVIA-ARELLANO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jul 15, 2010

Citations

387 F. App'x 770 (9th Cir. 2010)