or grant a new trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1949). Petitioner attacked his sentence when he filed his § 2255 motion and since the sentence was based on his plea of guilty to both § 924(c) and the conspiracy charge, it can be considered the aggregate of the interdependent convictions. See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996) (recognizing that interdependence of convictions leads to a single sentencing package). Therefore, re-sentencing, as used in § 2255, “requires the court to reexamine the aggregate sentence thus allowing it to enhance the sentences on the other convictions as appropriate.” Mayes, 937 F.Supp. at 661 citing Merritt, 930 F.Supp. at 1114. See also United States v. Tucker, 90 F.3d 1135, 1143-44 (6th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). As stated by the First Circuit: [Wjhen a
holding that reversal of the  924c convictions under bailey  means that the government may now seek such enhancements under  2dllbl  holding that in relation to is an element of 18 usc  924c holding that prior convictions are merely sentencing enhancements rather than elements of the offense holding that the categorical approach applies to  924c holding that multiple convictions under  924c cannot be based on offenses forming a single unit of prosecution