United States v. Jose Ramon Gordils and Nicholas Mpounas, Gregory Melendez and Francisco Bastar

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that full resentencing may be appropriate “in the context of a ‘truly interdependent’ sentence”
• holding that McClain II is still good law post-Guidelines
• reaffirming McClain’s holding and upholding increase in sentence for counts remaining after Section 924(c) conviction was collaterally attacked and vacated
• declining to distinguish between direct appeals and § 2255 petitions in 3 the sentencing context
• explaining that the “language . . . from [section] 2255 gives a district court broad and flexible remedial authority, having vacated and set the judgment aside, to resentence a defendant and correct the sentence as appropriate” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)
• “[Section] 2255 gives a district court broad and flexible remedial authority, having “vacate[d] and set the judgment aside,’ to resentence a defendant and correct the sentence as appropriate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).