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 a.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 the applicable constitutional and statutory limits, if that appears necessary in order to ensure that the punishment still fits both crime and criminal. cert. denied, 493 U.S. 890, 110 S.Ct. 233, 107 L.Ed.2d 185 (1989)). Counts grouped together pursuant to the sentencing guidelines are interdependent. U.S. v. Rozier, 485 Fed.Appx. 352, 356 (11th Cir.2012) (<HOLDING>); U.S. v. Miller, 594 F.3d 172, 181-82 (3d
holding exhibits deemed admitted into evidence where they were treated below without objection as if they were admitted holding that counts were interdependent where they were grouped together holding that appellants fourteenth amendment due process claim did not require reversal where they failed to show that they were prejudiced holding that tort claims were arbitrable because they arose out of and were related to contract holding that all claims submitted by defendant were false because they were acquired by kickback