at 76, reasoning that the sentence on the remaining count was presumably “fairly determined at the time it was imposed,” id. Had the government made a different tactical choice and indicted and tried the two sets of charges separately, resulting in separate judgments of conviction, the sentence on one set of charges would not be open to reconsideration after the reversal of separate convictions and sentences resulting from a separate trial and conviction for the other, unrelated offenses. We have limited the application of Pisa-ni “to the context of unrelated counts.” United States v. Vasquez, 85 F.3d 59, 61 (2d Cir.1996) (remanding for resentencing on remaining narcotics counts after vaca-tur of firearm conviction); see also United States v. Rosario, 386 F.3d 166, 170 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). While Weingarten argues that his counts are
holding that double jeopardy does not prohibit resentencing on unchallenged count after appeal of defendant on another count and vacatur of entire sentence but explicitly noting that what we have said  in no way is addressed to a situation involving concurrent or noninterlocking sentences holding that an apprendi error was harmless where the defendant received a concurrent sentence on another count longer than the statutory maximum applicable to the count affected by the error holding that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count cannot attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jurys verdict of acquittal on another count citations omitted holding that the double jeopardy clause did not bar resentencing on counts that were affirmed on appeal when a sentence of imprisonment on another count was vacated holding that in some circumstances a sentence on one count may be increased after the sentence on a similar or related count has been vacated on appeal