Record on Resentenc-ing is Being Considered. The resentencing hearing was conducted in two sessions, the first on September 1, 2005, during which the sentencing record was expanded, and the second on September 8, 2005. The court believes appropriate to consider the expanded record existing at the time of resentencing, and to sentence Clark consistent with the findings and conclusions the court feels are proper to be made and reached under that record. See United States v. Lee, 358 F.3d 315, 322-23 (5th Cir.2004). See also Monge v. California, 524 U.S. 721, 730, 118 S.Ct. 2246, 141 L.Ed.2d 615 (1998) (noting the general rule that double jeopardy principles have no application in the sentencing context); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 247, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949) (<HOLDING>). Of course, in the resentencing the court, as
holding the government did not violate its plea agreement with a defendant because in addition to specifically retaining the right to comment at the sentencing hearing concerning defendants conduct and background the prosecuting attorney had a duty to bring all relevant information about defendant to the courts attention at the time of sentencing holding that a defendants guilty plea is not knowingly made and is hence constitutionally invalid and subject to reversal on habeas if it is based upon erroneous sentencing information provided by the judge holding when it is not clear that the sentencing judge would have imposed the same sentence if a lower sentencing range would have been available remand is required recognizing that sentencing judges have the discretion to reject any sentencing guideline but no judge is required to do so recognizing that highly relevant  if not essential  to a sentencing judges selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendants life and characteristics and concepts individualizing punishment have made it all the more necessary that a sentencing judge not be denied an opportunity to obtain pertinent information by a requirement of rigid adherence to the restrictive rules of evidence properly applicable to a trial