not decide that question today. The government contends that whenever a portion of a sentencing package is challenged, the -judge modifying the sentencing package should be able to modify any portion of that package as long as the resulting aggregate sentence is less onerous than it was prior to the challenge. This argument is based on the holistic nature of the trial judge’s sentencing decision: .rather than sentencing count by count, the judge looks at the .totality of the defendant’s conduct and fashions a sentencing package he deems to he the appropriate societal response. This government contention has already been accepted by this court as the preferable approach in the context of resentencing after a direct appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Curry, 902 F.2d 912 (11th Cir. 1990) (<HOLDING>). The context of a Rule' 35 challenge to a
holding sentence on some but not all counts illegal but nonetheless vacating all of the sentenceslegal and illegalto allow sentencing judge to refashion new overall sentencing plan holding that the sentencing judge could consider the defendants subsequent arrest even though the charges were dismissed during sentencing holding that a sentence not in compliance with the mandatory provisions of a sentencing statute was illegal and appealable holding that the whole point in hale is that once the habitual offender sentencing scheme is utilized to enhance a sentence beyond the statutory maximum on one or more counts arising from a single criminal episode consecutive sentencing may not be used to further lengthen the overall sentence and certifying conflict with davis recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so