U.S. v. Pittman

Dist. Ct. did not err in sentencing defendant to 120-month term of imprisonment on five crack distribution counts and one unlawful possession of firearm count even though defendant argued at sentencing hearing that he was victim of vindictive prosecution where govt. sought his conviction on said counts after he had pleaded guilty to separate crack distribution count and received below-guidelines sentence on said count. Defendant failed to establish with objective evidence that any prosecutorial animosity motivated govt. decision to proceed on remaining counts after defendant had entered into guilty plea without any promise not to proceed on said counts. Moreover, fact that decision to proceed on instant counts was made shortly after sentencing on first count was insufficient by itself to establish prosecutorial animosity. Ct. also rejected defendant’s argument that concept of vindictive prosecution should include situations where prosecutor is motivated by desire to have defendant sentenced to significant term of imprisonment.