United States v. Weingarten

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding new sentence that imposed the same aggregate sentence after vacating a related count of conviction
• rejecting actual vindictiveness in part because the “district court’s conclusion that its initial aggregate sentence was still appropriate is understandable”
• rejecting a double jeopardy challenge to an increased sentence after one count was vacated because, inter alia, “all five counts are integrally related and concern the same underlying pattern of conduct”
• describing Rigas, in part, as having held that “if the vacatur of a count of conviction has altered the ‘factual mosaic related to’ the remaining counts” then resentencing is required (emphasis added)
• using the “remainder aggregate” or “count-by-count” approach, under which appellate courts compare the original aggregate sentence on the non-reversed counts on appeal with the original sentence on those same counts before appeal

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).