Whether the trial court erred by not complying with 18-U.S.C-3553(a) and conducting a plenary resentencing hearing after vacating a conviction and removing a mandatory portion of the sentence

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED I. SENTENCING IN FEDERAL COURT IS GUIDED BY STATUTE AND CONSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS, STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS INCLUDE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTORS IN 18 U.S.C, SECTION 3553(a). WHERE THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT IS IMPACTED BY VACATING A CONVICTION AND REMOVING A MANDATORY PORTION OF THE SENTENCE, DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR BY NOT COMPLYING WITH SECTION 3553(a) AND CONDUCTING A PLENARY RESENTENCING HEARING? II. THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IN A SECTION 2255 PROCEEDING IS STATUTORY AND REQUIRES COUNSEL BE APPOINTED WHEN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE SO REQUIRE. WHERE AUGUSTIN SOUGHT TO HAVE A CONVICTION VACATED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS AND SOUGHT RESENTENCING, DID THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING THE MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL?