Full opinion text
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. Defendants Leonard Kragness, Dennis Deters, Peter Caspersen, Jerald Holbrook, and Ronald Prescott were charged in a thirteen-count indictment with conspiring to violate and violating the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d), with several drug conspiracies, and with other substantive offenses. According to the indictment, the defendants were participants in an organization that, between 1976 and 1984, imported and distributed, and conspired to import and distribute, substantial quantities of marijuana, cocaine, and methaqualone, or quaaludes. They were tried jointly in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, and each was convicted of two or more of the crimes charged against him. The defendants raise a number of issues on appeal from these convictions, including issues concerning the interpretation of RICO, double jeopardy, a defendant’s right to confront witnesses, prosecutorial comment upon a defendant’s failure to testify, and a variety of evidentiary questions. In the main, we affirm. I. Facts We state the facts in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict. The drug organization that is the subject of the indictment began in the small town of Spring Grove, Minnesota. The two central figures in this organization, defendants Leonard Kragness and Dennis Deters, are from Spring Grove and resided there at the outset of these events. Kragness then owned a plumbing and heating business, and Deters owned Deters Veneer and Lumber. Deters’s business was later to provide a cover for the drug business; for example, members of the drug organization often claimed to be searching for timber for Deters’s company when they were conducting drug-related activities. Two other participants in the business, defendant Jerald Holbrook and government witness Richard Lager, were also from Spring Grove. Holbrook worked for Deters in the lumber business before the drug business began, and continued to be his employee thereafter. John Teeter, a key participant in early drug undertakings, lived in Spring Grove for two years beginning in 1973, and met Kragness then. Defendant Peter Caspersen grew up with Teeter in South Minneapolis, Minnesota, but lived in Colorado when the drug business began. The government’s evidence related to four periods or categories of drug activity-involving the defendants. First, there was evidence of drug importation and distribution by Kragness and Teeter from 1976 or 1977 to 1978. Second, there was evidence of a later project to import marijuana from Mexico involving use of a La Junta, Colorado airstrip; events related to this project occurred primarily in 1979. Third, there was evidence of a cocaine-and-quaalude importation project in 1979-1982; most of these transactions involved use of an airport and hangars in Anadarko, Oklahoma, and of a rented house in nearby Chickasha, Oklahoma. Finally, there was evidence of Mexico-Arizona marijuana-smuggling activities undertaken in 1981-82. The government presented the testimony of about 30 witnesses, but the principal witnesses for the government were three men who participated in this drug business: Richard Lager, Anthony Benanti, and Walter Schieche. Lager, who had been granted immunity from prosecution, testified about Kragness’s early drug business with Teeter, about the marijuana importation projects, and about a shipment of cocaine that he helped distribute. Benanti and Schieche, each of whom testified pursuant to a plea agreement, told of the cocaine- and-quaalude end of the business. Benanti had been arrested on drug charges in June 1982, and had served as a government informant for about two years thereafter. Besides the testimony of these and other witnesses, the government introduced a substantial volume of telephone and credit-card records, tracing the movement of and communication between participants in these drug activities, as well as numerous financial documents and records, tracing the money involved. A. Early Drug Activities Kragness, while recruiting Lager for his drug operation in 1979, told Lager of his drug activities with John Teeter during several preceding years. Kragness, a licensed pilot, stated that, among other things, he and Teeter had flown planeloads of marijuana from Mexico into the La Junta, Colorado area, and upon landing had taken the marijuana to the Colorado home of Teeter’s friend, Peter Caspersen. Kragness closed his plumbing business at some point before 1979, and became for a time nominally an employee of Deters’s lumber business; however, other regular employees of the lumber business testified they never saw Kragness do work for the company. In 1977-1978, Kragness and Teeter were distributing drugs to a man in Quincy, Illinois named Gene Ferry, according to the testimony of Ferry’s girlfriend and of one of his drug customers, Jimmy Schlemm. Ferry worked for a short time in the summer of 1977 in the lumber business of a man who did work for Deters; Ferry had gotten the job after Deters, during a meeting at which Kragness and Holbrook were present, requested that he be hired. In the fall of 1977, Ferry went to work selling marijuana for Kragness. On one occasion in late 1977, Kragness delivered four or five pounds of marijuana to Ferry, and in early 1978 Kragness delivered a kilogram of cocaine to Ferry. In March 1978, in a delivery engineered by Kragness, Teeter brought marijuana and hashish from Colorado to Ferry in Illinois. On March 21, 1978, Teeter went with Ferry to sell part of this shipment to Schlemm; Schlemm murdered Teeter and Ferry, crimes for which he is now imprisoned in Illinois. During the investigation of these murders, Kragness made efforts to prevent discovery of his involvement with Teeter in drugs; however, Kragness on at least one occasion acknowledged to an investigator that he had played a role in marijuana importation. B. La Junta Marijuana Operations Lager’s first drug-related transaction with Kragness was in November 1978, when he lent Kragness $1,000 and a month later received $1,500 as repayment. Then, in February 1979, Kragness had Lager locate property near La Junta, Colorado for use as a clandestine airfield in the importation of marijuana from Oaxaca, Mexico. After Kragness inspected and approved the land Lager located, Lager, using Kragness’s money, purchased the land, placing title in his own name. At the time of the land purchase, Kragness offered, and Lager accepted, a job as a “transporter” in Kragness’s drug operation; Lager was to pick up drugs when planes arrived and carry them in a truck to further distribution points. Lager in fact began to perform this task, as well as a variety of others, making him a sort of general errand-boy for the drug organization. Lager’s first chance to act as a transporter came in August 1979, when, at Kragness’s request, he traveled to Colorado with Deters and Holbrook. Kragness hoped to have Deters, who is a licensed pilot, take his place and serve as pilot on a drug run into the La Junta airfield. However, Deters was unable at this point to gain the confidence of Salvatore “Sam” Aleto, a financial backer of the project. So the run was aborted, and Lager returned to Minnesota. Lager went to Colorado again in October and before Thanksgiving in November to meet anticipated planeloads of marijuana, but no loads arrived; Lager was told on the latter occasion that Holbrook had driven the marijuana from Mexico to California. Then, late one night, shortly after Thanksgiving in 1979, Lager, at Kragness’s direction, met a plane piloted by Deters and loaded with marijuana at the La Junta airstrip. Lager, Deters, and Kragness loaded the marijuana into a pickup truck. Lager drove the truck to Peter Caspersen’s house, where he spent the night. The next morning, Kragness, Deters, and Aleto arrived. The men weighed the marijuana on Caspersen’s scale and divided it among Aleto, Caspersen, and Kragness, each of whom had customers for the marijuana. Lager then drove Kragness’s share of marijuana to Kragness’s Nederland, Colorado home, where he hid it in a chimney. Kragness and two Canadian customers arrived later, and it was agreed that Lager would drive the marijuana to Grand Coulee Dam, Washington, and that Kragness would fly the marijuana from there to Canada. Lager met Kragness and one of the Canadians at the Grand Coulee Dam Airport, and helped them load the marijuana on Kragness’s plane. Kragness and the Canadian took off, and Lager returned home. Shortly before Christmas in 1979, Lager participated in another drug transaction similar to the transaction just after Thanksgiving. Deters piloted a planeload of marijuana into La Junta, Lager transported the marijuana to Caspersen’s home, where it was divided up, and Lager then took Kragness’s share to Kragness’s home in Nederland. After Christmas, Lager drove the marijuana to Grand Coulee Dam, where he met Kragness. During bad weather, the two drove to Canada to meet the Canadians and returned to Grand Coulee Dam, smuggling about $63,000 (Canadian) received from the Canadians through United States Customs by secreting it in a car-door panel. When the weather cleared, Lager and Kragness loaded the marijuana onto a plane, and Kragness flew it to Canada. Upon Kragness’s return, Lager went home to Minnesota, carrying the Canadian currency with him. Over the course of these La Junta operations and thereafter, Lager performed a number of financial transactions related to the drug business. In April 1979, Lager and a Spring Grove woman named Bonnie Jones, in Kragness’s presence, opened a bank account in Rochester, Minnesota, depositing $39,000 (Canadian) that Kragness had brought from Colorado. In October 1979, after the second aborted La Junta drug run, Lager received about $57,000 (Canadian) from Kragness in Colorado, and deposited it in the Rochester account when he returned to Minnesota. Lager also deposited the $63,000 (Canadian) that he and Kragness smuggled out of Canada into this account. The total deposits to this account from its opening through its closing in August, 1981, in United States dollars, were about $171,000. In late 1979 or early 1980, Lager received $5,000 (Canadian) from Deters, deposited it in the account, and returned an equivalent sum in United States currency to Deters. From time to time, Lager disbursed to Kragness funds that Kragness had entrusted to him; in one instance the funds went towards the purchase of an airplane. Lager sometimes “laundered” the funds by passing them through an account he had with a securities firm. In late 1981, Lager and Kragness placed Alaskan property owned by Kragness in Lager’s name, so that Kragness could avoid having to account for the wealth it represented. C. Cocaine and Quaalude Operations The principal cocaine and quaalude operations involved in this case began in late 1979, when Aleto met Miami residents Anthony Benanti and Roland Sokol at a meeting in Denver, Colorado. Benanti testified that he and Sokol had a source of Colombian cocaine and quaaludes, Frank, Jose, and Nicholas Strusberg, but lacked an adequate means of transporting the drugs from Colombia. Aleto informed them that he had a friend with a plane and the ability to transport drugs from Colombia. A second meeting was held in Miami in early 1980, at which Benanti, Aleto, Deters, and Bobby Pucci (a Benanti associate) were present. At the meeting, it was arranged that Deters would fly to Colombia and return with a load of quaaludes. Meanwhile, in February 1980, Deters contacted Lager in Minnesota and asked him to find an airplane hangar in a specified area of Oklahoma. Lager did as requested, driving to Oklahoma and locating and renting two adjacent hangars at an airport in Anadarko. At about the same time, Deters rented a house in Chickasha, Oklahoma, eighteen miles from Anadarko. Deters told the owner of the house that he was renting it for “Carl Ryan”; at some later point, the owner met Jerald Holbrook, who identified himself as Carl Ryan. The house was rented for a little over a year, during which the owner saw it occupied at various times by Deters, Holbrook, and a number of other persons. This house and the Anadarko hangars were used as a base of operations for subsequent cocaine and quaalude flights. The first flight took place in mid-April 1980. As arranged earlier, Deters served as pilot; Holbrook served as his co-pilot. Aleto, who was with Deters and Holbrook in Oklahoma, called Benanti in Miami when the plane left for Colombia. Benanti then called Sokol to let him know the plane was on its way. Sokol called Benanti back when the plane left Colombia. Deters and Holbrook arrived back in Oklahoma with eight cartons, each containing 25,000 quaaludes, and were met by Aleto. Not all of the quaaludes were of a salable grade. Part of the remainder was distributed to Houston, Texas, and the rest were taken by Aleto to Benanti and Pucci in Baltimore, Maryland, where Benanti and Pucci distributed them. A second flight took place in July, 1980. This flight was also preceded by planning meetings in Denver and Miami in which Benanti, Deters, and others participated. The operation went off much the same as the first, except that government witness Walter Schieche, rather than Holbrook, was the co-pilot. Schieche had been recruited to the operation by Deters. Twelve to fifteen cartons of quaaludes were brought back this time. Holbrook and Pucci transported eight cartons to Benanti in Baltimore, where Benanti and Pucci distributed them; the remainder went to Houston, Texas. A third flight took place in the fall of 1980, this time with Holbrook and Schieche as pilots. This time, twelve cartons of quaaludes and twelve kilograms of cocaine were brought back from Columbia. After the plane landed in Oklahoma, the drugs were loaded into a pickup which Holbrook then drove to Dallas, Texas. Schieche and Deters, who had met the plane, went to Dallas the next day. There they met Holbrook, Benanti, Benanti associate Fabio Binetti, Frank Strusberg, and a Strusberg associate. Strusberg took a third of the drugs, Holbrook took a third, and Binetti took a third. Holbrook drove the cocaine he was given to California, where Benanti met him, took the cocaine, and sold it. Binetti delivered the drugs entrusted to him to Pucci in Atlanta. Holbrook and Schieche were again the pilots on a fourth, , and, as it turned out, final trip to Colombia, which took place in March 1981. This flight departed from an airport in Mount Vernon, Illinois, and on its return landed at an airport south of St. Louis, Missouri. Again, Holbrook and Schieche brought back twelve cartons of quaaludes and twelve kilograms of cocaine. Deters met the flight, and Holbrook took the drugs to St. Louis in a car while Deters and Schieche flew the plane to another airport. Deters, Binetti, Benanti, and Lager met Holbrook in St. Louis and divided the drugs. Binetti, Deters, and Holbrook each took possession of a third of the drugs. Binetti delivered the drugs entrusted to him to Pucci in New York. Holbrook again delivered the cocaine portion of the drugs he was given to Benanti in California, where Benanti sold it. Deters gave his cocaine, which was contained in two briefcases, to Lager. Lager took it to Minnesota and then to South Dakota, where he awaited instructions. Shortly thereafter, Deters called Lager and instructed him to deliver part of the cocaine to Caspersen. Lager took one briefcase of cocaine to Caspersen’s house, where he met Caspersen, Deters, and an unknown third man, to whom he saw Caspersen give the cocaine. Lager kept the other briefcase until May 1981, when he delivered it to Deters and another man in Dallas, Texas. In July 1981, at Deters’s instance, Lager picked up money from Caspersen that Caspersen owed Deters for the cocaine he received; Lager delivered the money to Deters in Minnesota. A fifth flight to Colombia was planned, but never took place. Holbrook and Schieche were again to serve as pilots. Deters and Benanti each fronted $50,000 to the Strusbergs in connection with the planned flight. The Strusbergs eventually reported that they could not obtain more drugs in Colombia. However, they did not return the $100,000 advance, but instead gave Deters and Benanti two kilograms of cocaine. Deters and Benanti distributed the cocaine to several customers. A portion of Benanti’s cocaine went to Binetti, who was later arrested in Baltimore on charges connected to this cocaine. Binetti cooperated with authorities, and this led to Benanti’s arrest in June 1982. Benanti in turn agreed to cooperate with authorities by working as an undercover agent. From June 1982 to October 1983, Benanti tape-recorded a number of face-to-face meetings and phone conversations in which past and possible future drug activities were discussed. Portions of these recordings were introduced at trial, and Benanti testified that certain voices on the tapes were those of Deters and Holbrook. At several points in the tapes, the name Ron or Ronnie is mentioned in connection with past activities; Benanti testified that these were references to defendant Prescott. The government alleged that Ronald Prescott was the Houston, Texas distributor of cocaine and quaaludes for the business. Evidence concerning Prescott came principally from Schieche and Benanti. Schieche testified that on his first flight to Colombia (which was the second Colombia flight overall), when he and Deters landed near Anadarko, they were met by Pucci and Holbrook, who then transported the drugs from the run to Oklahoma City. The next day, Schieche traveled to Oklahoma City with Kragness’s wife, Karen Kragness; there he briefly met with Deters, Holbrook, and Pucci in a hotel room, where they were engaged in sorting the quaaludes, removing those not of a salable grade. A fourth man whom Schieche did not know was also in the room, but did not handle the drugs in Schieche’s presence. Some months later, just before Schieche’s second flight (the third overall), he traveled with Deters to Dallas, where Deters was to meet a Houston man named “Ronnie” and arrange for Ronnie to take Deters’s share of quaaludes from the upcoming flight. Schieche was not formally introduced to the man but saw Deters with him in the hotel lobby when the man checked out; Schieche recognized him as the fourth man in the Oklahoma City hotel room after the previous flight. Shortly after the man left, Deters told Schieche that the man in the lobby was Ronnie. In early 1982, Schieche met Deters in Madison, Wisconsin. Deters informed Schieche that an IRS criminal investigation was afoot, and instructed him that, if asked, he should say that Deters and Benanti were in the exporting business. Deters then mentioned the name “Ronald Prescott”; in response to Schieche’s question about whom he was referring to, Deters responded: “You remember Ronnie from Dallas, when we were in Dallas at the motel.” Tr. 1515. Deters continued that the story as to Ronnie was that Deters was selling him oak flooring. Deters also told Schieche at some point that Ronnie was from Northern Minnesota. Tr. 1547-48. Prescott is in fact from Duluth, Minnesota, and, according to his brother, lived in Houston from about 1975 to 1985. Tr. 2782. At trial, Schieche identified Prescott as “[t]he person that looks most like the person I saw in the Dallas lobby,” Tr. 1456; however, Schieche conceded on cross-examination that he could not identify Prescott from among the general population, but meant only that Prescott was the most similar among persons seated at the defense counsel table. Tr. 1682-83. Benanti testified that sometime after the group’s second flight to Colombia in July 1980, but before the third trip in the fall of that year, Deters told him that the Houston purchaser of their drugs was a man named Ron. Tr. 1768. Later in his testimony, Benanti stated that he met Ron Prescott in Miami, and that pursuant to business discussions they had then, he later sold Prescott cocaine on five or six occasions. Tr. 1772-74. The defense contends that the record establishes that Benanti’s and Prescott’s meeting occurred in 1983, and that therefore the sales occurred in 1983 or later, well after the last drug sales alleged in the indictment, while the government argues that they took place in 1981; we address this debate infra, Part VIL A. Other testimony relevant to Prescott came from Mary Amundsen and from Lager. Amundsen, who is Deters’s ex-wife, testified that she saw Prescott use cocaine once during a vacation the Deters and Prescott families took together in Florida in 1981. Tr. 1731-35. Lager testified that when he delivered the second briefcase of cocaine to Deters and another man in Dallas in May, 1981, see supra, p. 851, the other man was identified to him as Ron. However, Lager testified that he saw the man only very briefly, and at trial was unable to identify Prescott as the man he saw with Deters. Tr. 852. D. Arizona Marijuana Importation In May 1981, Kragness telephoned Lager at his home in South Dakota and requested him to act as a transporter for a planned importation of drugs from Mexico into the Phoenix, Arizona area. Lager agreed and traveled to Colorado, where he met Kragness and Dennis Nelson, a friend of Dennis Deters’s. These three then flew to Phoenix. Kragness explained to Lager the plan for the drug run, a plan Kragness and other participants said he had used before. A man called Eddie Roberts, whose real name was John Blackwell, was to pick up marijuana in Oaxaca, Mexico and drive it to a Mexican airport near the United States border. Nelson was to fly to this airport and return with the marijuana. Lager and various other persons would wait for Nelson at two alternate Arizona airports. When Nelson landed, the pick-up person would transport the marijuana to Roberts’s ranch near Tucson. This drug flight was eventually called off. Kragness and Nelson made a reconnaissance flight to the Mexican airport, and discovered that a number of Mexican federal police were present there. Nelson called Deters to discuss the problem, and, acting upon Deters’s advice, decided not to make the drug run. ' The other participants then gave up on the trip and returned home. In late May 1981, Kragness again contacted Lager and requested that he go back to Arizona to participate in a drug run. This time Lager traveled to Colorado and met Martin Vinson, with whom he then flew to Phoenix. In Phoenix, Lager and Vinson met with Roberts and others, with whom they were to execute the same plan as on Lager’s first trip to Arizona, except that Vinson was to be the pilot. On the appointed day, Lager went to one of the alternate return airports; he saw Vinson’s plane fly over, but it did not land at his airport. Lager drove to Roberts’s ranch, where he found the other participants, save for Vinson, and a quantity of marijuana. The marijuana was divided up and Lager then returned home, making part of the trip with a Canadian to whom part of the marijuana had been distributed. In January 1982, Kragness asked Lager to go to Oaxaca, Mexico with Roberts and drive Roberts’s pickup camper back carrying a load of marijuana. Lager and Roberts drove from Arizona to Oaxaca, and after they arrived, Roberts obtained a number of cannisters of marijuana which he loaded into his truck. On their way home, Roberts and Lager were stopped at a checkpoint by Mexican authorities, searched, and arrested when the marijuana was discovered. Lager spent from late January to mid-March 1982 in a Mexican prison. Kragness helped obtain Lager’s release, apparently by arranging bribes of Mexican officials. E. The Indictment and Trial As noted above, the appellants were tried on a thirteen-count indictment. Count I, a RICO conspiracy count, charged that Aleto and the appellants conspired to conduct or participate in the conduct of a drug enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity; 49 overt acts were listed in the count. Count II, a substantive RICO count, charged the persons named in Count I with conducting or participating in the conduct of a drug enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. This count alleged 31 predicate acts of racketeering. Count III charged Vinson, Aleto, and all of the appellants except Prescott with conspiring to import marijuana. Count IV charged the persons named in Count III with a conspiracy to distribute marijuana. Count V charged Deters, Holbrook, and Aleto with conspiring to import cocaine and quaaludes, while Count VI charged Aleto and all of the appellants with conspiring to distribute cocaine and quaaludes. Counts VII and VIII charged Deters with traveling in interstate commerce to promote unlawful activity. Count IX charged Deters and Holbrook with causing Lager to possess cocaine with intent to distribute it. Count X charged Kragness with using a telephone to facilitate marijuana exportation and distribution. Count XI charged Kragness with interstate travel to promote marijuana exportation and distribution. Count XII charged Kragness with causing the transportation of Canadian currency to the United States without reporting it. Finally, Count XIII charged Kragness with conspiring with Lager to obstruct the Internal Revenue Service in the collection of taxes. The defendants’ trial began September 18, 1985; the jury returned its verdict on October 21, 1985, after over four days of deliberations. Kragness was convicted on Counts I, II, III, IV, XI, XII, and XIII, and acquitted on Counts VI and X. Deters was convicted on Counts I through IX, all the counts charged against him. Caspersen was convicted on Counts I, II, and IV, but was acquitted on Counts III and VI. Prescott was convicted on Counts I and VI, but was acquitted on Count II. Finally, Vinson was acquitted on Counts III and IV, the only charges against him. The convicted defendants were sentenced on January 6, 1986 to concurrent sentences on each conviction. The longest sentence Kragness and Deters received for a conviction was twenty years, the longest for Caspersen and Holbrook was ten years, and the longest Prescott received was seven years. II. RICO We first take up the defendants’ arguments concerning their RICO convictions. RICO makes it a crime “for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). An “enterprise” is defined to “include[ ] any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4). “Racketeering activity” is defined in 18 "U.S.C. § 1961(1) as the commission of one of a number of specified state and federal crimes, commonly referred to as “predicate acts.” The crimes specified include “the felonious manufacture, importation, receiving, concealment, buying, selling, or otherwise dealing in narcotic or other dangerous drugs, punishable under any law of the United States.” A “pattern” of racketeering activity “requires at least two acts of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). The defendants assert that the District Court failed to give an adequate instruction upon RICO’s enterprise requirement, that no enterprise was shown to exist, and that RICO’s “pattern of racketeering activity” requirement was not met. Caspersen, Kragness, and Prescott further assert that the government failed to establish an adequate nexus between them and any enterprise or pattern of racketeering activity. Finally, Caspersen and Kragness contend that their convictions on Count II must be overturned because the indictment charged a single act of racketeering as two acts, permitting the jury to find the requisite two predicate acts of racketeering from what was actually only one act. For the most part we disagree with these contentions. A. The Enterprise Requirement The enterprise alleged by the indictment here does not fall under the “legal entity” part of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4)’s enterprise definition, but is instead a “group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” The Supreme Court, in United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981), rejected arguments that a “completely illegal organization” such as the one here could not be a RICO enterprise. However, the Court was careful to make clear that it is not enough in the case of such an “associational enterprise” simply to establish a pattern of racketeering activity. Instead, “[t]he existence of an enterprise at all times remains a separate element which must be proved by the Government.” Id. at 583. An enterprise is established “by evidence of an ongoing organization, formal or informal, and by evidence that the various associates function as a continuing unit.” Ibid. The enterprise “is an entity separate and apart from the pattern of [racketeering] activity in which it engages,” ibid; see also United States v. Anderson, 626 F.2d 1358, 1365 (8th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 912, 101 S.Ct. 1351, 67 L.Ed.2d 336 (1981), although the proof of these separate elements “may in particular cases coalesce.” Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 2529. See generally United States v. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 214, 221-23 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 849, 104 S.Ct. 157, 78 L.Ed.2d 145 (1983). Following Turkette, this Court in United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647, 664-65 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1040, 103 S.Ct. 456, 74 L.Ed.2d 608 (1982), identified three characteristics that distinguish a RICO enterprise: First, there must be a common or shared purpose that animates the individuals associated with it. Second, it must be an “ongoing organization” whose members “function as a continuing unit,” Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 2528; in other words, there must be some continuity of structure and of personnel. Third, there must be an ascertainable structure distinct from that inherent in the conduct of a pattern of racketeering activity. See also, United States v. Lemm, 680 F.2d 1193, 1198 (8th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1110, 103 S.Ct. 739, 74 L.Ed.2d 960 (1983). Proof of all three of these characteristics is necessary in order to avoid the danger of guilt by association that arises because RICO does not require a proof of a single agreement as in a conspiracy case, and in order to ensure that criminal enterprises, which are RICO’s target, are distinguished from individuals who associate for the commission of sporadic crime. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 664-65; Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1198. 1. The Enterprise Instructions The District Court's instructions to the jury contained the following statements concerning the enterprise requirement: You must find the existence of an enterprise, that is, as it applies to this case, a group of persons associated for the common purpose of dealing in narcotics or other dangerous drugs[.] Tr. 3745. You must find that the defendant’s participation in the affairs of the enterprise was through a pattern of racketeering activity which was separate from the acts that constitute the enterprise. Tr. 3745-46. The term “enterprise” includes any group of individuals associated in fact, although not a legal entity. Tr. 3747. The defendants did not object to these instructions at trial; accordingly, as the defendants acknowledge, Brief of Appellant Kragness at 30, any deficiency in the instructions merits reversal only if it constitutes plain error. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 30; United States v. Gantos, 817 F.2d 41, 43 (8th Cir.), petition for cert. filed, No. 87-5101 (U.S. July 13, 1987). The defendants maintain that there is plain error here because the instructions permitted the jury to find an enterprise upon mere proof of a conspiracy. They also contend that the instructions allowed the jury to find an enterprise from the proof of predicate acts without more, rather than requiring them to find an entity separate from the pattern of racketeering activity. We disagree. First, we think it clear that the instructions required more than proof of a conspiracy, of an agreement among a group of individuals to do illegal acts. Instead, the instructions adequately address, at least for the purposes of plain-error review, the three characteristics of an enterprise listed by this Court in Bledsoe. The requirements of a common puipose and of a structure distinct from that inherent in the pattern of racketeering are expressly mentioned in the instructions. The instructions do not expressly mention the requirement of continuity of structure and personnel, but we think that use of the term “enterprise” itself implies that such continuity is contemplated. Although it might have been preferable to refer specifically to this factor in the instructions, omitting such a reference was not plain error. The defendants argue that the instruction concerning the requirement of a structure distinct from the pattern of racketeering is deficient because it contains the words “acts that constitute the enterprise”; this, they assert, permitted an enterprise to be found from proof of predicate acts simpliciter. This is a misconstruction of the instruction, which, as it should, states precisely the opposite of what the defendants contend, requiring that an enterprise be established separately. The phrase “acts that constitute the enterprise” refers not to predicate acts, but to any acts that demonstrate the characteristics of an enterprise, e.g., acts demonstrating that individuals associated with a putative enterprise occupy positions of command and subordination. Accordingly, we conclude that there was no plain error in the District Court’s enterprise instructions. 2. Sufficiency of the Enterprise Evidence We further hold that there was sufficient evidence of each of the three enterprise characteristics for a jury to find that an enterprise existed. First, it is abundantly clear that the common-purpose element was present here. Each defendant shared the common purpose alleged in the indictment, to import, receive, conceal, buy, sell, and otherwise deal in narcotic and dangerous drugs, and each to some extent carried out this purpose. See Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1199. Next, the requisite continuity of structure and of personnel has also been demonstrated. Continuity of structure exists where there is an organizational pattern or system of authority that provides a mechanism for directing the group’s affairs on a continuing, rather than an ad hoc, basis. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 665; Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1199; Riccobene, 709 F.2d at 222. The continuity-of-personnel element involves a closely related inquiry, in which “[t]he determinative factor is whether the associational ties of those charged with a RICO violation amount to an organizational pattern or system of authority.” Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1199, citing Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 665; see Riccobene, 709 F.2d at 223. The continuity of these elements need not be absolute; the group’s system of authority may be modified, old members may leave, and new members may join. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 665; Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1199; Riccobene, 709 F.2d at 222-23. That some changes in structure and personnel occur does not mean that there is no mechanism for continuing direction of group affairs; both the structure and the personnel of an enterprise may undergo alteration without loss of the enterprise’s identity as an enterprise. As one might expect, both the structure of and the personnel associated with the organization here underwent some changes during the course of its various activities. Nonetheless, the activities of the group exhibit a pattern of roles and a continuing system of authority; the essential identity of the enterprise endured. Kragness, Deters, Holbrook, Caspersen, and Lager were all members of the organization from at least 1979 until it ceased operations. Other participants in the organization’s drug activities came and went, and there was a significant expansion of the operation with the addition of Benanti and his associates in the cocaine-and-quaalude project, but the core group remained involved throughout. Kragness and Deters occupied positions of authority, arranging and directing the group’s drug importation and distribution. They recruited and assigned personnel, oversaw the provision of logistical and materiel requirements, such as airfields and planes, and provided and organized financial backing. Both Kragness and Deters personally performed more low-level tasks, such as piloting planes on drug runs, during the early days of their involvement in the drug business, and progressed to perform more “hands-off” supervisory roles. Caspersen and Prescott performed distribution functions throughout the course of their involvement in the business; Caspersen provided a “safe house” for drugs and distributed marijuana and cocaine, and Prescott distributed quaaludes and cocaine. Lager was recruited by Kragness to act as a “transporter,” and performed, this role throughout his involvement; he also performed the tasks of finding both the La Junta and Anadarko airstrips, and performed banking functions throughout the course of the enterprise. Holbrook also acted as a transporter, and assisted in flying both Mexican marijuana flights and Colombian cocaine-and-quaalude trips. Others in the business also played consistent roles, e.g., Schieche acted as a pilot on a number of flights to Colombia. In addition to the activities of the participants, further evidence of the existence and structure of this organization is provided by a number of statements that participants made to other persons; for example, Kragness once stated to a girlfriend that he objected to the use of drugs by anyone in “his organization." Tr. 559 (Testimony of Rita O’Flaherty). We therefore conclude that there was sufficient evidence of continuity of structure and of personnel. Lastly, we hold that there was also sufficient evidence of an ascertainable structure distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity. As the Third Circuit has observed, to establish this element, it is not necessary to show that the enterprise has some function wholly unrelated to the racketeering activity [such as a legitimate line of business], but rather that it has an existence beyond that which is necessary merely to commit each of the acts charged as predicate racketeering offenses. The function of overseeing and coordinating the commission of several different predicate offenses and other activities on an on-going basis is adequate to satisfy the separate existence requirement. Riccobene, 709 F.2d 223-24. See Bledsoe, 674 F.2d at 665. For example, in United States v. Lemm, supra, a case which involved an arson ring, we found that the enterprise had not impermissibly been found from the predicate acts where, if the predicate acts of mail fraud were all put to one side, there was still evidence of other legal and illegal acts, such as legitimate purchases and repairs of property and acts of arson, that showed an on-going structure. 680 F.2d at 1201. Here there was evidence of a number of activities aside from the commission of the alleged predicate acts that demonstrate that the enterprise had an on-going structure, and that its members were not simply engaged in sporadic, ad hoc criminal activity. The organization made investments in its criminal future, such as purchasing the La Junta property, acquiring planes that were suitable for drug flights to Mexico, and renting the Anadarko hangars and the Chickasha house; these assets were not exhausted with a single drug run, but were used repeatedly over the course of a number of criminal episodes. The various banking and financial services performed by Lager are further nonpredicate-act evidence of the organization’s on-going structure. In sum, we conclude that there was sufficient evidence of each of the three characteristics of an enterprise enumerated in Bledsoe to support the jury’s conclusion that an enterprise existed. B. Pattern of Racketeering Activity It is implicit in RICO’s definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” to “require[ ] at least two acts of racketeering activity,” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) (emphasis added), that “while two acts are necessary, they may not be sufficient.” Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3285 n. 14, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985). “[T]wo isolated acts of racketeering activity do not constitute a pattern,” nor do “one ‘racketeering activity’ and the threat of continuing activity.” Ibid. Instead, “continuity plus relationship” between the predicate acts is necessary to establish a pattern. Ibid., quoting S.Rep. No. 91-617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 158 (1969) (emphasis added). Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Sedima, this Court has held that where all the predicate acts were committed in furtherance of a single “scheme,” there is not sufficient continuity among the acts to meet the pattern requirement. E.g., Superior Oil Co. v. Fulmer, 785 F.2d 252, 257-58 (8th Cir.1986); Holmberg v. Morrisette, 800 F.2d 205, 209-10 (8th Cir.1986), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 1953, 95 L.Ed.2d 526 (1987). In both Superior Oil and Holmberg we held that several related acts of mail and wire fraud that were part of a single criminal effort did not constitute a pattern; we observed that “ ‘[i]t places a real strain on the language to speak of a single fraudulent effort, implemented by several fraudulent acts, as a “pattern of racketeering activity.” ’ ” Superior Oil, 785 F.2d at 257 (footnote omitted), quoting Northern Trust Bank, N.A. v. Inryco, Inc., 615 F.Supp. 828, 831 (N.D.Ill.1985); Holmberg, 800 F.2d at 210. We note that the Seventh Circuit has rejected Northern Trust Bank’s holding that no pattern is shown where the predicate acts were committed as part of a single scheme, see Morgan v. Bank of Waukeegan, 804 F.2d 970, 973-77 (7th Cir.1986); see also United States v. Ianniello, 808 F.2d 184, 189-93 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, —U.S.-, 107 S.Ct. 3230, 97 L.Ed.2d 736 (1987) (rejecting two-scheme requirement); Bank of America v. Touche Ross & Co., 782 F.2d 966, 971 (11th Cir.1986) (same), but this of course does not alter the law in our Circuit. Here we think it clear that even our more restrictive view of the pattern requirement has been met, for there is evidence of not two but three separate schemes: first, there was a scheme to import marijuana into La Junta; second, there was a cocaine-and-quaalude scheme; and third, there was a scheme to import marijuana into the Phoenix area. The cocaine-and-quaalude project constitutes a separate scheme because, inter alia, it involved drugs different from that in the other schemes, a different drug supplier from a different country, a different United States base of operations (Anadarko/Chickasha), different customers, and the participation of a number of persons, such as Benanti and his associates, who were not involved in the marijuana schemes. While the La Junta and Phoenix schemes both involved marijuana from Oaxaca, Mexico, they nonetheless were separate schemes. They involved different United States bases of operation and different methods of smuggling the marijuana into the country (the La Junta marijuana was generally flown directly from Oaxaca to the United States, while the Phoenix marijuana was first driven to a point near the United States border). Further, there were a number of participants in each scheme who took no part in the other. Finally, the two schemes were separated by a substantial period of time; the last La Junta-based drug activities were in early 1981, while the earliest Phoenix activities were in mid-1982. We consequently have little difficulty in concluding that the pattern requirement was met here. C. Defendants’ Links to the RICO Violations 1. Caspersen and Kragness Caspersen and Kragness, who were convicted on both the RICO-conspiracy count (Count I) and the substantive RICO count (Count II), each claim the government failed to demonstrate an adequate nexus between them and any enterprise or pattern of racketeering activity. RICO, they stress, makes it unlawful for “any person ... to conduct or participate ... in the conduct of [an] enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) (emphasis added). They contend that to meet this standard, it must be shown that the individual defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity by personally and directly taking part in two different schemes. We doubt that it is necessary for each defendant to be personally and directly engaged in two different schemes (though the enterprise must be), given that the statute requires only that one “participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of [the] enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.” See infra pp. 859-860. Even were we to accept this proposition, it would be of no avail to Kragness and Caspersen, for they each participated directly in two different schemes conducted by the enterprise. Kragness asserts that there is no evidence that he had any truck with the cocaine-and-quaalude project. This, even if true, makes no difference, since Kragness participated in both of the marijuana schemes we have identified, supra pp. 6-9 and 14-16. As for Caspersen, there is evidence that he participated in the La Junta marijuana scheme and in the cocaine-andquaalude scheme. Caspersen objects that evidence of his participation in the cocaine- and-quaalude project may not be considered in assessing the validity of his RICO convictions because to do so would be inconsistent with his acquittal on Count VI, which charged him with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and quaaludes. However, inconsistency between verdicts on separate counts of an indictment does not entitle a defendant to reversal of a conviction on insufficient-evidence grounds. United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 68-69, 105 S.Ct. 471, 478-79, 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984); Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 52 S.Ct. 189, 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932); United States v. Bryant, 766 F.2d 370, 376 (8th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1054, 106 S.Ct. 790, 88 L.Ed.2d 768 (1986). Evidence of Caspersen’s cocaine activities, together with evidence of his role in the La Junta scheme, is sufficient to support his RICO conviction. 2. Prescott Prescott was acquitted on Count II, which charged a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), but was convicted on Count I, which charged a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). There is a split of authority among the circuits as to whether a § 1962(d) conspiracy to violate § 1962(c) requires that one agree personally to commit at least two predicate crimes, a view espoused by two circuits, or whether it is instead sufficient, as six circuits have held, to agree to the commission of two or more predicate crimes by coconspirators. This Court expressly reserved judgment on this issue in Lemm, 680 F.2d at 1203 n. 11. Under the mode of analysis established by our definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” in Superior Oil, supra, to require two racketeering “schemes,” the question is whether it is necessary that a defendant agree personally to take part in two schemes, or whether it is sufficient that he agree to the perpetration of two schemes by eoconspirators. Here, if the former is the law, then Prescott’s conviction must be overturned, for there is no evidence that he ever agreed to participate in any scheme other than the cocaine and quaalude scheme. However, we agree with the majority of the other circuits that RICO conspiracy law, like traditional conspiracy law, requires only that each defendant agree to join the conspiracy, not that he agree to commit each of the acts that would achieve the conspiracy’s objective. The terms Congress employed in the statute are expansive; it speaks not just of “conduct[ing]>” but also of “participating], directly or indirectly, in the conduct ... through a pattern of racketeering activity.” As other circuits have observed, the statute does not explicitly require an agreement personally to commit predicate acts, and such a narrow construction would not square with the congressional purpose in RICO of broadening the remedies available to combat organized crime. See United States v. Neapolitan, 791 F.2d at 495-96; United States v. Carter, 721 F.2d at 1528-29. The problem here thus becomes whether there is evidence sufficient to support a jury finding that Prescott agreed that others associated with the enterprise would engage in one or both of the marijuana schemes, schemes in which he did not personally participate. There is no substantial evidence that Prescott knew of either scheme. His conviction on Count I (RICO conspiracy) must therefore be reversed for lack of sufficient evidence. D. Divided Predicate Acts Caspersen and Kragness maintain that the verdict against them on Count II is fatally ambiguous because the indictment charged two predicate acts, acts 10(a) and 10(b), that were in fact a single act. Act 10(a) alleged that, on or about December 22,1979, Kragness, Caspersen, Deters, and Aleto imported marijuana from Mexico to the United States, violating 21 U.S.C. § 952(a). Act 10(b) alleged that on the same date, Kragness, Caspersen, and Aleto possessed marijuana with intent to distribute it, violating 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Kragness and Caspersen assert that 10(a) and 10(b) both refer to one act, bringing a single shipment of marijuana into the United States from Mexico, that simultaneously violated two statutes. This, they continue, means that the jury may have found the two predicate acts necessary to a RICO violation from what was actually only one act. We agree with the defendants that it is not proper under RICO to charge two predicate acts where one action violates two statutes. A pattern of racketeering activity requires “at least two acts of racketeering,” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5) (emphasis added), not “at least two statutory offenses.” We do not think that the factor of “ ‘continuity plus relationship,’ ” Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285 n. 14, quoting S.Rep. No. 91-617, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. 158 (1969) (emphasis added), which Congress thought necessary to establish a pattern, can be present where only a single act, albeit an act that violates two statutes, has been committed. See United States v. Phillips, 664 F.2d 971, 1038-39 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S.Ct. 2965, 73 L.Ed.2d 1354 (1982); but see United States v. Bascaro, 742 F.2d 1335, 1360-61 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1017, 105 S.Ct. 3476, 87 L.Ed.2d 613 (1985). Any error involved in charging 10(a) and 10(b) as separate predicate acts is harmless as to Kragness because he was convicted on Count XI, which charged a substantive offense identical to Count II's predicate act 10(d). Count XI and act 10(d) both allege that on or about December 26, 1979, Kragness traveled in interstate commerce, from Minnesota to Washington, for the purpose of promoting trafficking in marijuana, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952(a). Having convicted Kragness on Count XI, the jury must have found that he committed act 10(d); therefore, it is clear that the jury did not find the requisite two predicate acts from acts 10(a) and 10(b) alone. As to Caspersen, however, our analysis requires a different conclusion. Although evidence of many other predicate acts was strong, we cannot know from the jury's general verdict of guilty which acts it found Caspersen had committed. There is a possibility that his conviction is based on a finding that he committed acts 10(a) and 10(b), but no others. As a practical matter, this seems most unlikely, but in a criminal case a conviction may not be upheld on the basis of speculation or inference, however strong, of this kind. It is the jury that must convict, not an appellate court. If the instructions leave open the logical possibility that the verdict is based on a legally insufficient predicate, the conviction cannot stand. That is the case here, and Caspersen’s conviction on Count II (substantive RICO) must be reversed. III. Misjoinder, Severance, and Variance Defendants Caspersen and Kragness assert that their convictions must be reversed under Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(b) because joinder of the defendants was improper on the face of the indictment. Rule 8(b) provides that two defendants may be charged “in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions.” It is not necessary that every defendant have participated in or be charged with each offense in the indictment, but there must be “some common activity involving all of the defendants which embraces all the charged offenses.” United States v. Bledsoe, 674 F.2d 647, 656 (8th Cir.1982). We think joinder was proper on the face of this indictment. The defendants were all named together in the RICO and RICO-conspiracy counts (Counts I and II), and the various drug conspiracies charged in the indictment (Counts III-VI) were part and parcel of the RICO violations. The defendants’ chief argument is that the remaining seven counts were improperly joined. However, it is obvious that the three counts charging interstate travel to promote drug trafficking by Deters (Counts VII and VIII) or by Kragness (Count XI), the count charging Deters and Holbrook with causing Lager to possess cocaine (Count IX), and the count charging Kragness with using a telephone to promote drug trafficking (Count X), all involved offenses embraced within the defendants’ common RICO activity. The only counts that even superficially appear unrelated to the common activity are Counts XII and XIII, which, respectively, charge Kragness with causing the unreported importation of Canadian currency and with conspiring to evade income taxes. But the indictment alleges that the funds involved were proceeds of or otherwise connected with the defendants’ racketeering activity. See Count I, Overt Act 24; Count XII; Count XIII & Overt Act 6. Even were these crimes not sufficiently connected to the defendants’ common activity to justify joinder, the error would be harmless, since evidence of Kragness’s illicit profits would have been relevant to the RICO and drug conspiracies, and would therefore have been admissible here anyway. See United States v. Lueth, 807 F.2d 719, 730 (8th Cir.1986). The defendants next assert that, once trial began, it became clear that joinder was prejudicial, and that severance should have been granted under Fed.R. Crim.P. 14. Rule 14 provides the trial court with discretion to grant a severance when it believes the defendants or the government may be prejudiced by joinder. Our review of the trial court’s decision is for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438, 106 S.Ct. 725, 732 n. 12, 88 L.Ed.2d 814 (1986); Lueth, 807 F.2d at 730-31. Here, the defendants have not shown the “clear prejudice” necessary to establish that the District Court abused its discretion. See United States v. Mansaw, 714 F.2d 785, 790 & n. 5 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 986, 104 S.Ct. 434, 78 L.Ed.2d 366 (1983). The evidence on the common counts was not so much more damaging against some defendants than others as to raise fears that the “jury could not reasonably be expected to compartmentalize the evidence as it relates to separate defendants.” United States v. Knife, 592 F.2d 472, 480 (8th Cir.1979) (citations omitted). Nor did the counts charging only one or two defendants, such as the interstate-travel counts, involve crimes of a more serious or inflammatory nature that might have produced a “spill-over” effect. Indeed, we see strong proof that the jury was able to compartmentalize the evidence in the fact that, after much of the cocaine and quaalude evidence was admitted with the instruction that it was not to be considered as to Kragness, the jury acquitted Kragness on the only exclusively cocaine-andquaalude count (Count VI) in which he was charged. The defendants also argue that the evidence here did not establish an overall agreement to violate RICO, but instead showed only three “regional” conspiracies (corresponding to the three schemes we identify in our discussion of the RICO “pattern” requirement, Part II. B., supra), with overlapping members. This, they continue, means that there was a prejudicial variance between the indictment and the proof at trial, see Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750, 755-56, 66 S.Ct. 1239, 1243, 90 L.Ed. 1557 (1946), and also affects the issue of joinder, for if there was no overall RICO agreement, there was no common activity embracing the various other crimes charged. See id. at 774-75, 66 S.Ct. at 1252-53; Lane, 106 S.Ct. at 730-31. This argument is largely a reiteration of the contentions addressed in Part II. C., supra, that no adequate nexus was shown between various defendants and the enterprise or pattern of racketeering. As we view the evidence, while a jury might have concluded that the different schemes were not connected, the evidence was more than adequate to support a finding that Kragness, Caspersen, Deters, Prescott, and Holbrook were parties to an overall agreement to engage in the various schemes. IY. Double Jeopardy The defendants next contend that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits their conviction for both Count I’s RICO-conspiracy charge and the various drug conspiracies charged in Counts III-VI. We disagree. The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after an initial acquittal, against a second prosecution for the same offense after a conviction, and, in its aspect which is relevant here, against multiple punishments for a single offense. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 2076, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). The test for determining whether two offenses are the “same” for double-jeopardy purposes was announced in Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932), which stated: The applicable rule is that where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not. Since Blockburger, the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that, at least in cases where cumulative punishments are imposed in a single prosecution, the Block-burger rule is a tool of statutory construction used to determine legislative intent rather than a constitutional “litmus test” that imposes a conclusive presumption of law. See, e.g., Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 778-79, 105 S.Ct. 2407, 2411-12, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985); Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 366, 103 S.Ct. 673, 678, 74 L.Ed.2d 535 (1983). In this context, the Double Jeopardy Clause serves only to prevent courts from imposing greater punishment than the legislature has provided for: [T]he question of what punishments are constitutionally permissible is not different from the question of what punishments the Legislative Branch intended to be imposed. Where Congress intended, as it did here, to impose multiple punishments, imposition of such sentences does not violate the Constitution. Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 1145, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981). On the other hand, “where the offenses are the same under [the Block-burger ] test, cumulative sentences are not permitted, unless elsewhere specially authorized by Congress.” Whalen v. United States, 445 U.