discussed Cited "see" United States v. Palmer, Michael See Lanier v. United States, 220 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 930 , 121 S.Ct. 312 , 148 L.Ed.2d 250 (2000); Moore v. United States, 173 F.3d 1131, 1133 (8th Cir.1999). 11 Palmer's challenge to the district court's dismissal of the Palmer 2255 Motion rests on two grounds: first, he contends that his section 2255 motion, filed pro se on April 8, 1997, simply amended the FPD 2255 Motion, which was filed before the enactment of the AEDPA and therefore is not a successive motion under the AEDPA.

cited Cited "see" United States v. Palmer, Michael See Lanier v. United States, 220 F.3d 833, 837 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 930 , 121 S.Ct. 312 , 148 L.Ed.2d 250 (2000); Moore v. United States, 173 F.3d 1131, 1133 (8th Cir.1999).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ogando v. United States See also Lanier v. United States, 220 F.3d 833, 841 (7th Cir.) (“[W]hen the presumption against double punishment requires invalidation of the conviction for either the greater or lesser offense, the choice of which conviction to vacate rests with the sound discretion of the district court.”), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 930 , 121 S.Ct. 312 , 148 L.Ed.2d 250 (2000); United States v. Chambers, 944 F.2d 1253, 1269 (6th Cir. 1991) (district court has discretion to vacate either conspiracy or CCE count on remand), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1112 , 112 S.Ct. 1217 , 117 L.Ed.2d 455 (1992).