the prisoner or resentenee him or grant a ant is found guilty on a multicount indictment, there is a strong likelihood that the district court will craft a disposition in which the sentences on the various counts form part of an overall plan. When the conviction on one or more of the component counts is vacated, common sense dictates that the judge should be free to review the efficacy of what remains in light of the original plan, and to reconstruct the sentencing architecture upon remand, within applicable constitutional and statutory limits, if that appears necessary in order to ensure that the punishment still fits both the crime and the criminal. United States v. Pimienta-Redondo, 874 F.2d 9, 14 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S, 890, 110 S.Ct. 233, 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989) (<HOLDING>). Indeed, it seems odd that section 2255 would
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 on direct appeal appellate court may remand for resentencing of all counts holding that resentencing is required holding that in addition to a remand for clarification another option in these circumstances is to remand for resentencing holding that issues underlying all counts were sufficiently intertwined that the separate appeal of the summary judgment counts would complicate the trial of the remaining counts