Opinion ID: 552369
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Availability of Resentencing

Text: 46 Briggs asks that, if we set aside her bank fraud convictions, we also order resentencing on the remaining convictions, for transportation of stolen money. Her request is well-taken. The rule in this circuit is clearly established: 47 [U]nless it can be ascertained from the record, as it now stands or after it is supplemented on remand, that the District Court's sentence on a valid conviction was not affected by a subsequently invalidated conviction on another count of the indictment, the defendant must be resentenced on the valid conviction. 48 Jerkins v. United States, 530 F.2d 1203, 1204 (5th Cir.1976); see also Bourgeois v. Whitley, 784 F.2d 718, 721 (5th Cir.1986) (where it cannot be ascertained from [the] record that the sentence on the [valid] conviction was not affected by the invalid ... convictions, defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing) (citing Jerkins ). 49 Here, the district court explained its sentencing decision on all six counts with a single narrative referring to Briggs' activity [which] occurred over a fairly long period of time. 20 It seems likely that the court considered her activities as a whole, including her now-invalidated guilty plea on the bank fraud counts. Certainly, the negative of this proposition cannot be ascertained from the record, as it now stands. Accordingly, we vacate Briggs' sentence on the transportation of stolen money charges, and remand for supplementation of the record or resentencing consistent with our precedent.