Labuff

MEMORANDUM **

Defendant Levi Samuel LaBuff, Sr., appeals the district court’s imposition of a harsher sentence following his partially successful appeal. We vacate the sentence and remand for resentencing.

The Supreme Court has held that “whenever a judge imposes a more severe sentence upon a defendant after a new trial, the reasons for his doing so must affirmatively appear.” Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559, 564-65 , 104 S.Ct. 3217 , 82 L.Ed.2d 424 (1984) (quoting North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 726 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969), overruled in part by Alabama v. Smith, 490 U.S. 794 , 109 S.Ct. 2201 , 104 L.Ed.2d 865 (1989)). If a judge fails to supply reasons for imposing a harsher sentence, and there is a “reasonable likelihood that the increase in sentence is the product of actual vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing authority,” then “a presumption arises that a greater sentence has been imposed for a vindictive purpose—a presumption that must be rebutted by objective information ... justifying the increased sentence.” Smith, 490 U.S. at 798-99 , 109 S.Ct. 2201 (internal quotations omitted). “This rule applies to resentencings as well as…