This case turns on whether the Pearce presumption of judicial vindictiveness applies—for the Government to then rebut with new evidence—when a second (new) sentencer imposes a harsher sentence, representing an actual (true) increase, following a successful collateral attack on the original sentence. The question presented is whether the 9th Circuit erred in failing to address whether the new judge's application of new controlling case law to a collateral attack on the original sentence is a "triggering event". If not, the controlling question is whether the Pearce presumption applies to a second sentencer, absent a traditional reversal or order from a higher tribunal, which is also the subject of a long-standing and firmly entrenched circuit split. This Court should grant certiorari to resolve these issues.

Whether the Pearce presumption of judicial vindictiveness applies when a second (new) sentencer imposes a harsher sentence following a successful collateral attack on the original sentence