Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Loe’s Highport Inc

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40091
Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff - Appellee
v.
LOE’S HIGHPORT INC
Defendant - Appellant
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:97-CR-71-4
--------------------
October 2, 2002
Before KING, Chief Judge, and SMITH and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Loe’s Highport, Inc., (LHI) appeals the $4,000,000 fine it
received on remand after this court reversed three counts of
conviction for money laundering. See United States v. Loe, 248
F.3d 449, 454 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 397 (2001).
LHI argues that, although the amount of the fine was the same as
the original fine, it was a harsher sentence because it was
divided among fewer counts, and therefore, vindictive.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 02-40091
-2-
The Supreme Court held in North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S.
711 (1969), that the Due Process Clause forbids the imposition of
a more severe sentence upon resentencing after an appellate
reversal because of the possibility of judicial vindictiveness.
Under the “aggregate package” approach adopted by this court in
United States v. Campbell, 106 F.3d 64, 66 (5th Cir. 1997), the
fine LHI received on remand is not more severe than the original
sentence, and therefore, is not vindictive. LHI’s argument that
this court should deviate from the “aggregate package” approach
is without merit.
The sentence on remand is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --