Should this Court grant the petition, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case for further consideration of the government's pending motion to dismiss?

James Little pled guilty to a single petty offense arising from the events at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. After a successful appeal challenging his initial sentence, Little was resentenced by the district court in January 2024. Little filed a second appeal, contending that the district court violated the double jeopardy clause —as interpreted by Ex parte Lange , 85 U.S. (18 Wall.) 163 (1873), and In re Bradley , 318 U.S. 50 (1943) —when it impos ed an increased prison sentence at resentencing . On December 20, 2024, the D.C. Circuit issued a published opinion that affirmed Little ’s sentence and rejected his double jeopardy argument. See United States v. Little , 123 F.4th 1360 (D.C. Cir. 2024). Then, on January 20, 2025, the President issued an Executive Order titled “Granting Pardons and Commutation of Sentences for Certain Offenses Relating to the Events at Or Near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” Among other things, that Order directed the Attorney General to seek dismissal with prejudice of all pending cases against individuals for “conduct related to the events at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.” In accord with the Executive Order ’s directive, the government filed a motion to dismiss the information in Little ’s case on February 27, 2025. The question presented is: Should this Court grant the petition, vacate the judgment below, and remand the case for further consideration of the government ’s pending motion to dismiss?