In Wasman v. United States (1984), 468 U.S. 559, 104 S.Ct. 3217, 82 L. Ed. 2d 424, the Supreme Court clarified its Pearce holding by making it "clear that due process does not in any sense forbid enhanced sentences or charges, but only enhancement motivated by actual vindictiveness toward the defendant for having exercised guaranteed rights." Id. at 568. The Supreme Court reiterated that "a sentencing authority may justify an increased sentence by affirmatively identifying relevant conduct or events that occurred subsequent to the original sentencing proceedings. " Id. at 572. The Supreme Court stated that the fact that Wasman received a greater sentence following retrial was sufficient to engage the presumption of vindictiveness of Pearce. However, the court found that the reasons given by the trial court for imposing the greater sentence, that is, Wasman's new criminal conviction between his initial sentence and his resentencing, "amply rebutted any presumption of vindictiveness." Id. at 569-570.