Did the district court violate the petitioner's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment?

QUESTION PRESENTED 1. Since the petitioner has been continuously in custody since October 4, 2007, he completely served the sentences of imprisonment imposed by the district court as to all other convictions (besides the now-vacated Count Three) before his resentencing, thereby satisfying the judgment imposing those terms of imprisonment. Resentencing the petitioner violated the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy prohibition against multiple punishments for an offense because the district court was not permitted to impose a new sentence or impose a sentence greater than that already imposed. Did the district court violate the petitioner’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment? 2. A lawful sentence must be sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the sentencing goals set forth at 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). A district court may not impose a sentence based upon a defendant’s held or expressed political views and may not impose a sentence that creates unwarranted disparities with sentences imposed on similarly situated defendants. Here, the district court on resentencing expressly relied upon the petitioner’s political beliefs to impose an extremely disproportionate sentence to that of his similarly situated co-conspirators, who were released at the time of their resentencing. Was the sentence procedurally or substantively unreasonable? ey)