WY 113, 334 P.3d 132, 142 (2014) (“When the United States Supreme Court vacated the judgment in Bear Cloud I, it wiped the slate clean. We remand for the district court to consider the entire sentencing package — that is, the sentences for all three counts — when it resentences Mr. Bear Cloud.”). 4 Nevertheless, to the extent we were inclined to consider any of these waived issues as part of this appeal, we agree that the Superior Court correctly rejected these arguments. Williams’s claim that the Superior Court lacks authority to resentence him when section 923(d) of title 14 of the Virgin Islands Code calls for a mandatory penalty that has been declared unconstitutional is wholly without merit. Shipps v. District Att’y for Norfolk Dist., 472 Mass. 1001, 32 N.E.3d 1254, 1255 (2015) (<HOLDING>); Ex parte Henderson, 144 So. 3d 1262, 1264
holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants holding claim that individuals convicted of murder at time when statute provided for mandatory death penalty that was later found to be unconstitutional are subject to no punishment at all for their offenses as meritless holding the death penalty excessive punishment for the crime of rape holding that defendant may be subject to death penalty on resentencing holding the death penalty unconstitutional for defendants under age eighteen at the time of the crime