The judge had no authority to reverse the previous sentence other than the portion remanded back for resentencing... The following from another article back when it case was remanded for resentencing. In other words the 10 year minimum wasn’t at issue.
From another article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081112/ap_on_re_us/agents_convicted
The U.S. Attorney’s office said a judge resentenced Jose Alonso Compean to 10 years for his conviction of using a weapon in the commission of a felony, plus two years for assault and other charges.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out some convictions against Ramos and Compean earlier this year, prompting Wednesday’s resentencing, but the court upheld the majority of the case. Ramos is due to be resentenced Thursday.
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_releases/Compean-Ramos/compean_resentence.pdf
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Shana Jones, Special Assistant Daryl Fields, Public Information Officer
(210) 384-7452 November 12, 2008
FORMER BORDER PATROL AGENT JOSE COMPEAN RESENTENCED TODAY
United States Attorney Johnny Sutton announced today, that former Border Patrol Agent Jose Compean was resentenced this morning by United States District Court Judge Kathleen Cordone to twelve years in federal prison - the same sentence originally imposed for his role in shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect. Mr. Compean was resentenced on the assault, civil rights and use of a firearm during a crime of violence charges.
On July 28, 2008, the Fifth Circuit, in upholding the majority of Compean and Ramos’ convictions, stated that [t]he trial of the case was conducted fairly and without reversible error. While the majority of the charges against Mr. Compean were upheld, the court did remand the case to the District Court for resentencing after it vacated the obstruction of justice charges.
Agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos were indicted by an El Paso federal grand jury and were convicted after a 2 ½ week jury trial in which both defendants testified. The Fifth Circuit affirmed the most serious charges against them and has denied their request for a rehearing on the matter.
#####