English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

It has been said that trouble seldom comes singly for the criminal defendant.' At trial she is often faced with a number of separate criminal charges. When such a defendant is convicted and sentenced, an appeal may result in the reversal of some but not all of the counts. The sentences attached to the reversed counts necessarily fall as well. Under these circumstances, the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have held that the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy2 does not preclude vacating the sentences on the remaining counts and remanding the case to the trial court for resentencing-expressly allowing for an increase of the sentences on the affirmed counts.3 Thus, in United States v.

Resentencing Defendants and the Protection against Multiple Punishment