United States of America v. Ruben Sanavia-Arellano

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUBEN SANAVIA-ARELLANO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50392
D.C. No. 3:07-cr-01578-LAB-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RUBEN SANAVIA-ARRELLANO,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-50425
D.C. No. 3:08-cr-02572-W-1
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California
FILED
JUL 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Algenon L. Marbley, District Judge for the Southern**
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Page 2 of 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

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 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.

-- 3 of 3 --