Opinion ID: 4464156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plenary Resentencing

Text: The parties disagree as to the scope of resentencing. We agree with the government that plenary sentencing is warranted. ʺ[T]here may be circumstances when we reverse a sentence in which the spirit of the mandate requires de novo sentencing, for example when the reversal effectively undoes the entire knot of calculation . . . .ʺ United States v. Quintieri, 306 F.3d 1217, 1228 (2d Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Further, ʺwe have upheld the authority of a sentencing court to revise upward one component of a sentence after another component was held to have been invalidly imposed.ʺ United States v. Versaglio, 85 F.3d 943, 949‐50 (2d Cir. 1996). Here, Stasior asked, in lieu of incarceration, for ʺan enormous amount of community service,ʺ suggesting ʺanother 7 thousand hours of workʺ because ʺ[t]hatʹs the kind of thing that would make an enormous impact on [Stasior].ʺ Appʹx at 235. The district court ultimately imposed a custodial sentence of one year and a day, well below the guidelines range of 30‐37 months, coupled with a term of supervised release that included substantial community service. The district courtʹs decisions as to the term of imprisonment and the extent of community service may very well have been intertwined, and we leave it to the experienced district court to determine whether the ʺknot of calculationʺ should be undone and to decide what new sentence is appropriate. Quintieri, 306 F.3d at 1228. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for plenary resentencing.