trial or correct the sentence as may appear appropriate. 28 U.S.C. § 2255. When defendant brought this § 2255 motion, he attacked the sentence that he received. This sentence was based on his plea of guilty to § 924(c)(1), § 841(a)(1), and § 846. These convictions were considered interdependently in arriving at petitioner’s final, aggregate sentence. See United States v. Clements, 86 F.3d 599 (6th Cir.1996) (recognizing that interdependence of convictions leads to a single sentencing package). Resentencing, 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.” Merritt, 930 F.Supp. at 1114. See United States v. Tucker, Nos. 95-1160/1187/1220, shp op. at 12 (6th Cir. July 25, 1996) (<HOLDING>). As stated by the First Circuit: [W]hen a
holding that in relation to is an element of 18 usc  924c holding that multiple convictions under  924c cannot be based on offenses forming a single unit of prosecution holding that prior convictions are merely sentencing enhancements rather than elements of the offense holding that reversal of the  924c convictions under bailey means that the government may now seek such enhancements under  2dllbl  holding that the categorical approach applies to  924c