ory appeal); ef United States v. P.H.E., Inc., 965 F.2d 848, 855 (10th Cir. 1992) (noting that, in comparing the vindic- tive prosecution claim in Hollywood Motor Car to a vindictive prosecution claim based on the defendants' dissemination of consti- tutionally protected speech, "[t]he wrong alleged is simil

onally protected speech, "[t]he wrong alleged is similar, but the right sought to be vindicated is not" because the "proce- dural rule [at issue in Hollywood Motor Carl raises concerns distinct from and less pressing than the courts' obligation to pro- tect the First Amendment right not to be subjected to a p