(D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 932, 113 S.Ct. 362, 121 L.Ed.2d 275 (1992). Had the defendant not been convicted under § 924(c), the District Court would have had the discretion to increase his drug trafficking offense level for firearm possession. However, since he was in fact convicted under § 924(c), it did not have such discretion. As such, defendant’s sentences for his drug offenses and using or carrying a firearm were interdependent. Because defendant’s sentences for conspiracy and attempt to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine and using or carrying a firearm were interdependent, we find it appropriate and within our power to vacate defendant’s sentence and remand to the District Court for resentencing. See United States v. Lang, 81 F.3d 955, 963 (10th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Fennell, 77 F.3d 510, 510-11
holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that a sufficiency challenge must be preserved in the trial court in a parental termination case to be reviewed on appeal holding that when a defendants conviction under  924c has been reversed on sufficiency of the evidence grounds on appeal the case must be remanded for resentencing to determine the applicability of the ussg  2dllbl enhancement holding that when a defendants sentence has been set aside on appeal a trial court at resentencing may consider evidence of the defendants postsentencing rehabilitation holding that remand for resentencing is appropriate when sentence for reversed conviction appears to have influenced trial courts sentence for the affirmed conviction