Vindictiveness The second issue Spears raises on his appeal is that his conviction should be vacated because the indictment was fueled by prosecutorial vindictiveness. When reviewing a claim of this type, we reverse the district court’s factual findings only if they are clearly erroneous, and we will review any legal conclusions de novo. The Supreme Court has determined that certain prosecutorial conduct raises a presumption of vindictiveness, which may then be rebutted by the government. United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 375-76, 102 S.Ct. 2485, 73 L.Ed.2d 74 (1982). Ordinarily, this conduct occurs at sentencing, and has the effect of discouraging a defendant from exercising a constitutional right. Id. (citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 725-26, 89 S.Ct. 2072 (1969) (<HOLDING>)). However, the Supreme Court has refused to
holding statutory interpretation is subject to de novo review recognizing de novo standard of review holding that there is a presumption of vindictiveness when a harsher sentence is imposed after a defendant exercises his right to a de novo review holding that presumption of vindictiveness is inapplicable in a system which gave a convicted defendant the right to a trial de novo in another court holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo