MOORE

v.

PAUL ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Young, 953 F.2d 1288 (11th Cir. 1992)
  …mponents of his sentence. Young thus cannot claim a legitimate expectation of finality in his term of incarceration merely because he challenged only the order for restitution. See United States v. Bentley, 850 F. 2d 327 (7th Cir.1988) cert. denied, 488 U.S. 970, 109 S.Ct. 501, 102 L.Ed.2d 537 (1988) (no double jeopardy concerns when modifying entire sentencing package after successful challenge of only one aspect of sentence), c.f. United States v. Curry, 902 F. 2d at 917-18 (no double jeopardy concerns in…
• United States v. Jackson, 923 F.2d 1494 (11th Cir. 1991)
  …. Nonetheless, the seventh circuit has held that neither Rule 35 nor double jeopardy concerns prevent a district judge from modifying an entire sentencing package in a Rule 35 attack. United States v. Bentley, 850 F. 2d 327 (7th Cir.), cert. denied 488 U.S. 970, 109 S.Ct. 501, 102 L.Ed.2d 537 (1988). Other courts have gone the other way. See United States v. Minor, 846 F. 2d 1184 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Henry, 709 F. 2d 298 (5th Cir.1983) (en banc) (plurality opinion). Because we have found that…
• United States v. Vontsteen, 910 F.2d 187 (5th Cir. 1990)
  …s interest in ensuring that the punishment “suit[s] not merely the offense but the individual defendant.” See id., quoting Wasman, 468 U.S. at 564, 104 S.Ct. at 3220; See also United States v. Bentley, 850 F. 2d 327, 328-29 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 970, 109 S.Ct. 501, 102 L.Ed.2d 537 (1988). 3. Given these considerations, we see no need to remand merely to require the district judge to state on the record now why he imposed the sentence. We recognize, however, the potential for a vindictiveness…