Skip to main content
Federal & State Lawfederalstatelaw.com
Home/Federal/Cases
Second Circuit· 4/16/2013

United States v. Weingarten

Citations

  • 713 F.3d 704
  • 2013 WL 1592569
  • 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7694

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).

Judges: Calabresi, Livingston, Lynch

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

18 cases in this archive cite this case.

Cites

43 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named United States v. Weingarten

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.