381, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 2492, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982)). However, a prosecutor’s discretion is subject to constitutional constraints. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 465,116 S.Ct. at 1480. A “prosecution brought with a vindictive motive, penalizing those who choose to exercise their constitutional rights, [is] patently unconstitutional.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 724, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2080, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969) (quoting United States v. Jackson, 390 U.S. 570, 88 S.Ct. 1209, 20 L.Ed.2d 138 (1968)). Consequently, “to punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.” Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 363, 98 S.Ct. 663, 668, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978); see also United States v. Williams, 47 F.3d 658 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). It is well settled that a federal court may
holding a criminal defendant has the right to effective assistance of counsel during a plea process holding violation of due process to penalize a criminal defendant for pursuing statutory right of appeal holding that there is no due process right to appellate review holding that there is no constitutional right to appeal a criminal conviction holding that a criminal defendant has a due process right to present evidence and that exclusion of evidence for a defense discovery violation should be imposed only if no other remedy suffices