United States v. Abraham Augustin, 16 F.4th 227

In 2009 Augustin kidnapped a drug middleman at gunpoint, threatened and fired a gun near the victim, and later arranged (by letter) paid hits on three witnesses while detained; he was convicted on eight counts.
The district court sentenced him to 500 months: concurrent terms (longest 380 months) plus a consecutive 120-month term under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
After direct appeal and an initial § 2255 denial, Augustin filed a successive § 2255 relying on United States v. Davis to challenge his § 924(c) conviction and sought appointment of counsel and possible resentencing.
The district court agreed Davis made his § 924(c) conviction unlawful, vacated that conviction and the consecutive 120-month sentence, but declined to hold a resentencing hearing and denied appointed counsel.
Augustin appealed, arguing the court should have resentenced him in full and erred by denying counsel. The Sixth Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court should have resentenced rather than simply correct the sentence after vacating the § 924(c) conviction	Augustin: the court should have conducted full resentencing so the court could reevaluate the entire sentence and § 3553(a) factors	Government/District Court: correction was proper because vacating § 924(c) did not affect other counts or the Guidelines range and no new sentencing discretion was required	The court affirmed correction rather than resentencing; vacating § 924(c) did not undermine the remainder of the sentence and resentencing was unnecessary
Whether the district court erred by denying appointment of counsel under § 3006A(a)(2)	Augustin: needed counsel to litigate resentencing, explore other postconviction benefits, and present mitigation evidence	Government/District Court: no constitutional right to counsel in postconviction; appointment discretionary and unnecessary because issues/facts were not complex and Augustin adequately presented arguments	Denial affirmed; no right to counsel for sentence correction and the district court did not abuse its discretion under the "interests of justice" standard

United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (invalidated § 924(c) residual clause)
United States v. Flack, 941 F.3d 238 (distinguishing sentence correction from full resentencing)
United States v. Thomason, 940 F.3d 1166 (when vacating a count requires full resentencing)
United States v. Palmer, 854 F.3d 39 (vacating one conviction need not unravel the rest of a multi-count sentence)
United States v. Franklin, 499 F.3d 578 (district court sentencing practice regarding § 924(c) effects)
United States v. Mitchell, 905 F.3d 991 (district court discretion to correct sentence)
Garza v. Idaho, 139 S. Ct. 738 (no general right to counsel in postconviction proceedings)
Martel v. Clair, 565 U.S. 648 (appointing counsel in habeas context is discretionary; "interests of justice" standard)
Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d 636 (standard of review for appointment of counsel)