McClinton
United States v. McClinton
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Kevin Brooks McClinton appeals the 180-month sentence and five-year term of supervised release imposed upon resen-tencing following the partial grant of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.
McClinton contends that the district court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a new sentencing hearing and increase his sentence by adding a five-year term of supervised release. This contention lacks merit. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ; see also United States v. Hock, 172 F.3d 676, 680-81 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that the district court has authority to resentence a defendant following a successful § 2255 motion).
McClinton also contends that his due process rights were violated because the district court punished him with a more severe sentence without stating its reasons for doing so on the record. There is no showing of judicial vindictiveness because the record reflects that the district court included a five-year term of supervised release as part of the original judgment that was vacated by the partial grant of McClinton’s § 2255 motion. See United States v. Hagler, 709 F.2d 578, 579 (9th Cir.1983).