United States v. Carl L. Combs

My colleagues agree that for the purpose of double jeopardy analysis Counts I and II are the same offense. I do not agree and therefore dissent. Judge Logan affirms the conviction because the case presents a sin*1299gle rather than successive prosecution. Judge McKay rejects the single prosecution concept and would reverse apparently on the ground that the guilty plea to Count II is a conviction of a lesser included offense and double jeopardy bars a trial of the greater offense. I agree with the result reached by Judge Logan and would affirm.

Count I charges violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2113(a) and…