Task: songer_genresp2

What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
When coding the detailed nature of participants, use your personal knowledge about the participants, if you are completely confident of the accuracy of your knowledge, even if the specific information is not in the opinion. For example, if "IBM" is listed as the appellant it could be classified as "clearly national or international in scope" even if the opinion did not indicate the scope of the business. 
Your task is to determine the nature of the second listed respondent. If there are more than two respondents and at least one of the additional respondents has a different general category from the first respondent, then consider the first respondent with a different general category to be the second respondent.

SPROUSE, Circuit Judge:
Donald Bruce MacDougall, Kenneth Wayne Gunn, Cleveland Sanders and Michael Harvey appeal their convictions resulting from their involvement in a major drug smuggling and distribution conspiracy which operated along the east coast of the United States for several years. Appellants belonged to one of the three major organizations whose activities are relevant to this appeal. The appellants’ organization separately and, on occasion, jointly with one or both of the other organizations imported and distributed large quantities of marijuana and hashish. The three conspiracies cumulatively grossed in excess of one hundred million dollars and involved more than one hundred persons. All four appellants assert that the double jeopardy clause of the federal Constitution bars their prosecution in this case. In addition, they challenge the procedure by which the district court handled their double jeopardy claims and the sufficiency of the evidence supporting several of their convictions. We affirm the convictions of MacDougall and Sanders; we remand the case of Michael Harvey for further proceedings; and, we reverse one of Gunn’s convictions.
The appellants’ convictions arose from an indictment in the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina. That indictment is South Carolina indictment number 166 and charged appellants and nineteen co-defendants with conspiracy and substantive controlled substances offenses. The appellants also raise points about several other indictments, principally South Carolina indictment number 165 and indictments number 31-A and 151 from the Eastern District of Virginia. (The indictments are referred to hereinafter by number.) All four appellants were convicted under indictment number 166 of conspiracy to import marijuana and hashish in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963 (Count One of the indictment). In addition, MacDougall was convicted of conspiracy to distribute the substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count Two), possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (Count Eight), and importation and possession of hashish with intent to distribute (Counts Thirteen and Fourteen). Sanders was convicted of conspiracy to distribute (Count Two) and importation and possession of hashish with intent to distribute (Counts Twenty-three and Twenty-four). Gunn was convicted of conspiracy to distribute (Count Two), and Harvey of importation of hashish (Count Thirteen).
MacDougall, Sanders and Gunn were also indicted in the District of South Carolina on conspiracy and substantive counts in connection with the prosecution of the participants in another major drug conspiracy. In that indictment, number 165, the charges were either dismissed or disposed of by not guilty verdicts prior to trial in the instant case. The disposition of the 165 indictment charges forms the basis of MacDougall’s, Gunn’s, and Sanders’ challenges to their present convictions on grounds that the prosecution in the instant case violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. In addition to his double jeopardy challenge, MacDougall attacks the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the convictions of conspiracy to import (Count One), importation of marijuana (Count Thirteen), and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute (Count Eight). Gunn contends that his indictment was the product of prosecutorial vindictiveness, and that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of Count Two, conspiracy to possess marijuana and hashish with intent to distribute. Sanders asserts that there was also insufficient evidence to convict him of conspiracy to import (Count One) and importation of hashish (Count Twenty-three).
Harvey’s double jeopardy claim has a different basis. Prior to his indictment in this case, Harvey, pursuant to a plea agreement in a drug conspiracy prosecution in the Eastern District of Virginia, indictment number 31-A, pled guilty to a single substantive count and served six months in the penitentiary. In return for his plea, the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia agreed not to prosecute Harvey on other drug related charges pending in the Eastern District of Virginia. He contends that the prosecution in the Eastern District of Virginia barred his prosecution in this case on double jeopardy grounds.
All four defendants assert that the district court erred in not allowing the jury to determine the validity of their double jeopardy claims and in denying them a bill of particulars of the charges against them.
Thus, in this appeal we must determine whether: 1) the trial in this case violated the defendants’ double jeopardy rights, including whether the trial court correctly ruled that the court and not the jury was to determine the issue of double jeopardy; 2) the district court committed error in the manner in which it caused Michael Harvey’s double jeopardy claim to be framed and tried; 3) there was sufficient evidence to sustain all the convictions; and, 4) it erred in denying Gunn’s assertion of prosecutorial vindictiveness and appellants’ request for a bill of particulars.
The facts underlying the appellants’ claims form a complicated pattern because of the size, and duration of and extensive personnel involvement in the drug smuggling and distribution operations and because of the level of cooperation among the organizations. One conspiracy to smuggle and distribute marijuana originated around the campus of the University of South Carolina in 1974. The scheme involved a number of fraternity brothers, their families and friends. Major figures in the drug smuggling operations who attended the University of South Carolina during the period 1970-74, included Leslie Riley, Michael Harvey’s brother, Leon (Lee) Harvey, Barry Foy, and Thomas Rhoad. Rhoad and Foy became the leaders of a major east coast drug smuggling conspiracy which generated the charges handed down against MacDougall, Sanders and Gunn in indictment number 165, the other South Carolina prosecution. Leslie Riley and Leon Harvey teamed together in 1977 to form the conspiracy for which the defendants were convicted in this case under indictment 166. The third organization involved in this appeal began when Julian Pernell and Barry Toombs entered into a smuggling and distribution partnership in 1973 in northern Virginia. Pernell testified at the trial in this case that his and Toombs’ organization was the largest marijuana and hashish distribution network on the east coast. Working independently and, on occasion, with each other and with the Pernell-Toombs organization, the Rhoad-Foy and Riley-Harvey organizations expanded to undertake dozens of multi-million dollar importation and distribution ventures. By 1983, when the government concluded the investigation of these illegal activities, the participants had created at least three major illicit drug operations involving smuggling and distribution activities from Florida to New England. Many of the smugglers and distributors had worked in more than one organization and the organizations themselves cooperated in numerous joint ventures.
The appellants contend that the level of cooperation demonstrates that there was, in fact, merely a single giant conspiracy for which they have been placed in jeopardy twice. Because we find that the evidence established the existence of separate conspiracies, we reject appellants’ double jeopardy claims. We further hold that the district court was correct in deciding that double jeopardy claims are to be resolved by the court. We feel, however, that the district court committed reversible error in the manner in which it allowed the jury to be informed of Michael Harvey’s double jeopardy defense before the court had decided the issue. Because we remand Harvey’s case due to this error, we do not decide the question of whether Harvey’s South Carolina prosecution was barred on double jeopardy grounds. We vacate his convictions and remand so that the district court may review its findings with respect to Harvey’s double jeopardy claims and consider any motions regarding Harvey’s plea agreement referred to it from the Eastern District of Virginia pursuant to the disposition of the pending appeal, No. 83-5256. Should the district court determine that the South Carolina prosecution of Harvey is not barred either on double jeopardy grounds or by the Virginia plea agreement, the government may proceed to retry him.
A proper understanding of our decision requires a chronological review of the events leading up to the appellants’ convictions. Again, the four appellants here were convicted in one trial in the district court of South Carolina on indictment number 166. The disposition of the appellants’ double jeopardy claims, however, requires us to review not only the facts underlying the offenses for which they were convicted, but also the facts underlying other indictments in both South Carolina (number 165) and the Eastern District of Virginia (numbers 31-A and 151). In 1974, Leslie Riley, lead defendant in number 166, joined with Barry Foy and Thomas Rhoad, lead defendants in number 165, to smuggle a large quantity of marijuana into the United States at Coconut Grove, Florida. Between the summer of 1974 and 1977, Riley was sporadically employed by both the Rhoad-Foy and Pernell-Toombs organizations as a boat captain. For example, in the fall of 1974, Pernell employed Riley as captain of the “Banana Quit,” a boat bringing 900 pounds of marijuana from Jamaica to Marathon Key, Florida. In late 1975, Riley participated with Pernell and Toombs in the importation of 6,000 pounds of Columbian marijuana into Florida. In 1977, Riley and Leon Harvey formed their organization for the purpose of smuggling marijuana. In its initial venture, the partnership joined with Pernell and Toombs to fly 3,600 pounds of marijuana into the United States. The venture ended unsuccessfully in March 1978 with the arrest of the participants in Georgia. The two organizations joined forces again in June 1978 to import marijuana from Columbia to Falmouth, Massachusetts. Toombs agreed to handle the loading, transportation and sale of marijuana; Leon Harvey undertook to arrange a boat, crew and offloading site. Toombs testified that MacDougall helped arrange for the off-load site and escorted Leon Harvey and Toombs to the site where they unloaded approximately 7,000 pounds of marijuana for resale in Virginia.
The Riley-Harvey organization expanded operations in the months which followed its initial ventures with the Pernell-Toombs organization. In the fall of 1978, Leon Harvey and Riley arranged for Christopher Campbell to captain a boat carrying 6,000 pounds of marijuana from Columbia to Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. Campbell hired Gunn as a crew member for the venture. In September 1978, Leon Harvey, Riley and Foy imported 9,500 pounds of marijuana from Columbia into the United States in the vicinity of McClellanville, South Carolina. The government concedes that this incident, involving the vessel “Straightaway,” was a joint venture and charged it as an overt act (number 20) in indictment number 165, although not in number 166.
In another venture sponsored by the Riley-Harvey organization later that year, Gunn served as a crew member on the “Love Affair,” a vessel carrying 7,700 pounds of Columbian marijuana. On November 8, 1978, the Coast Guard intercepted the “Love Affair” in the Bahamas, seized the cargo and arrested the crew, including Gunn and Campbell. In January 1979, Leon Harvey and the Pernell-Toombs organization cooperated in the importation of 28,000 pounds of marijuana from the Bahamas into South Carolina. In early 1979, the Riley-Harvey organization offloaded 8,000 pounds of marijuana at Hilton Head, South Carolina. A participant in that operation, George Strickland, identified MacDougall as having participated in the offloading. That summer Riley and Leon Harvey, again using Christopher Campbell’s services, imported 7,000 pounds of marijuana from South America to Buzzards Bay, Massachusetts. In June 1979, Leon Harvey and Riley engaged in another joint venture with Pernell-Toombs to import 22,000 pounds of marijuana from Samana Cay in the Bahamas to Virginia. The Riley-Harvey organization in the summer of 1980 imported 7,000 pounds of marijuana at Hilton Head. Later that summer or early that fall, the Riley-Harvey organization, using a boat captained by Pinckney Greene, a member of the Rhoad-Foy organization, imported 10,000 pounds of Columbian marijuana into the United States near Charleston, South Carolina. It also imported two loads of marijuana totaling approximately 16,000 pounds at Hilton Head in October 1980.
In early 1980, the Riley-Harvey organization began planning the importation of large quantities of hashish in a joint venture with the Pernell-Toombs organization. Riley-Harvey arranged for the purchase of the hashish; Pernell-Toombs its distribution. The Rhoad-Foy organization also paid $700,000 in return for a share of the hashish. As part of this operation, Michael Harvey travelled to Lebanon with money to pay for the hashish. Riley and Leon Harvey hired Campbell to captain a vessel named the “Second Life.” Campbell, whom Pernell testified worked for Riley and Leon Harvey, recruited Gunn as a crew member. In June 1980, the 30,000 pound hashish cargo was unloaded at Hilton Head Island. Both MacDougall and Michael Harvey participated in the offloading. In late 1980, the organization imported a 25,000 pound quantity of hashish at Hilton Head aboard the vessel, “LaCativa.” Around this time, Riley, Leon Harvey, Pernell and Toombs began planning a joint operation to import up to 100,000 tons of hashish from Lebanon. The operation subsequently involved several vessels, including one captained by Campbell with Gunn as a crew member. The vessels were offloaded at various points along the east coast. One of the vessels, the “Anonymous of RORC,” did not reach the east coast until October or November 1981. Its 9,000 pound cargo of hashish was offloaded onto two other boats which subsequently offloaded the hashish at a farm on Edisto Island, South Carolina, belonging to the family of appellant Sanders. Sanders had provided security for the operation. This last venture resulted in the arrest of many of the participants and the effective termination of the large scale smuggling activities of the Riley-Harvey organization.
Appellants’ Double Jeopardy Claims
Against the background of overlapping acts and personnel, we first consider the contention of MacDougall, Sanders, Gunn and Michael Harvey that their prosecution in this case violated their fifth amendment double jeopardy rights. To reiterate briefly, the basis of their claim is that the earlier prosecution in South Carolina had placed MacDougall, Gunn and Sanders in jeopardy and that Michael Harvey’s prosecution ending in his guilty plea in the Eastern District of Virginia barred his prosecution in this case. Before reaching the merits of those claims, however, we address their contention that the district court erred in refusing to allow the jury to consider the affirmative defense of double jeopardy. This contention is incorrect, and we affirm the district court’s determination that it was for the court to decide the double jeopardy issue.
The appellants’ double jeopardy claims did not implicate the issue of appellants’ guilt or innocence, which a jury must decide, but rather the right of the government to bring the action itself. Guilt or innocence is immaterial to the disposition of double jeopardy claims. The only question is whether the defendant has been previously placed in jeopardy for the offense alleged in the instant indictment. United States v. H.E. Koontz Creamery, Inc,, 232 F.Supp. 312, 315-16 (D.Md.1964). See United States v. Stricklin, 591 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir.) (determination of double jeopardy claims best made by court and not by jury; court may vacate pretrial ruling of no prior jeopardy if evidence developed at trial shows there was former jeopardy), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 963, 100 S.Ct. 449, 62 L.Ed.2d 375 (1979); United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 175 (3d Cir.1973) (distinction between the determination of guilt or innocence which a jury must make and preliminary matters concerning right of the court to conduct the trial which the court alone may decide); 1 Wright Federal Practice and Procedure, Criminal 2d, § 194, at 715 (1982) (little case law on this issue; “what there is distinguishes between the issue of guilt and innocence, for which a jury is required, and issues affecting the government’s right to prosecute, for which no jury is needed”).
Since the determination of the constitutional barrier of former jeopardy precludes trial and thus removes from the jury the issue of guilt or innocence, we feel that the defendants’ argument here is without constitutional merit. Appellants argue that the case of Short v. United States, 91 F.2d 614 (4th Cir.1937), is controlling. This court in Short indicated that the jury was to decide the issue of double jeopardy. Short, however, was decided before the enactment of Fed.R.Crim.P. 12. Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b) requires that defenses and objections based on defects in the institution of the prosecution, including former jeopardy, be raised prior to trial. These issues, not involving the issue of the defendant’s guilt or innocence which constitutionally a jury must decide, may be resolved by the court. We also find inapposite the cases on which appellants rely for the proposition that the determination of whether there is one conspiracy or multiple conspiracies in a given case is a jury question. Many of those cases involved a challenge to a jury verdict of guilty of the single conspiracy charged. The defendants in those cases alleged that the evidence at trial had shown the existence of two or more conspiracies and, thus, the proof of guilt of the single conspiracy charged was inadequate. United States v. Orozco-Prada, 732 F.2d 1076, 1086 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 154, 83 L.Ed.2d 92 (1984); United States v. Winship, 724 F.2d 1116, 1122 (5th Cir.1984), United States v. Thomas, 586 F.2d 123, 131-32 (9th Cir.1978); United States v. Heath, 580 F.2d 1011, 1022 (10th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1075, 99 S.Ct. 850, 59 L.Ed.2d 42 (1979). Another case cited involved a challenge to a jury finding of guilt on two conspiracy counts where the defendant argued that the evidence could support conviction only as to a single conspiracy, United States v. Alberti, 727 F.2d 1055,1059 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 199, 83 L.Ed.2d 131 (1984). Those cases did not involve jury resolution of prior jeopardy claims. Rather, they involved challenges to jury findings on the fundamental issue of guilt or innocence of the offenses charged. In sum, we hold that the district court correctly determined that the court, and not the jury, was to decide the issue of former jeopardy.
Having decided that the district court exercised proper authority in determining the validity of the appellants’ double jeopardy claims, we next decide whether the district court correctly applied the law of double jeopardy. We treat first the double jeopardy claims of MacDougall, Sanders and Gunn. Again, these appellants were either acquitted of the indictment number 165 charges against them, or the 165 charges were dismissed as to them. MacDougall, Sanders, and Gunn now challenge their conspiracy convictions on the grounds that the conspiracies charged in indictment number 166 were part of the same conspiracies charged in indictment number 165, and thus, the prosecution in number 166 violated their fifth amendment rights.
We compare the offenses underlying the two South Carolina indictments. MacDougall was charged in indictment number 165 with conspiracy to import marijuana and hashish in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963, conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute the substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and various substantive controlled substances offenses. Prior to trial on the number 165 charges, the government dismissed with prejudice the charges against MacDougall. MacDougall was then tried in indictment number 166 on charges of violating the same conspiracy statutes charged in indictment number 165, as well as substantive counts alleging importation of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960 (Counts Seven, Nineteen), possession of marijuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Counts Eight, Twenty), importation of hashish in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960 (Count Thirteen), and possession of hashish with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) (Count Fourteen). Prior to trial on indictment number 166, MacDougall moved for dismissal of Counts One and Two, the conspiracy counts, on the grounds that the dismissal with prejudice of the number 165 charges barred prosecution in this case on double jeopardy grounds. The district court denied MacDougall’s motions. At the close of the evidence, however, the district court entered findings of not guilty on Counts Seven, Nineteen, and Twenty charging MacDougall with importation and possession of marijuana. The jury convicted MacDougall on the five remaining counts — the two conspiracy counts, possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, Count Eight, and importation and possession of hashish, Counts Thirteen and Fourteen.
Gunn was charged in indictment number 165 with conspiracy to import marijuana and hashish and conspiracy to possess the substances with intent to distribute as well as substantive offenses. Indictment number 165 was dismissed with prejudice as to Gunn during trial on those charges. He was then tried and convicted under indictment number 166 of conspiracy to import hashish and marijuana and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute the substances. Sanders was charged on the two conspiracy counts and substantive counts in indictment number 165. At trial on the 165 charges, the jury found Sanders not guilty. In indictment number 166 he was charged and convicted of the two conspiracy counts and with importation and possession of hashish in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952(a) and 960 and 28 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(6) (Counts Twenty-three and Twenty-four).
The essence of our inquiry is whether the government has impermissibly divided a single conspiracy into two conspiracies by charging a violation of the conspiracy statute in two separate indictments. The double jeopardy clause clearly prohibits the division of a single criminal conspiracy into multiple violations of a conspiracy statute. Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 52-53, 63 S.Ct. 99, 101-02, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942); United States v. Lurz, 666 F.2d 69, 74 (4th Cir.1981), cert denied, 459 U.S. 843, 103 S.Ct. 95, 74 L.Ed.2d 87 (1982); United States v. Thomas, 759 F.2d 659, 661 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 106 S.Ct. 382, 88 L.Ed.2d 336 (1985). The traditional test used to determine whether separate indictments charge the same offense is the Blockburger “same evidence” test. See Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); United States v. Sinito, 723 F.2d 1250, 1256 (6th Cir.1983) (under Blockburger, offenses deemed identical for the purposes of the double jeopardy clause where the evidence required to support conviction in one of the prosecutions sufficient to support conviction in the other prosecution), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 86, 83 L.Ed.2d 33 (1984). The same evidence test, however, is of limited value in deciding double jeopardy claims raised with respect to successive conspiracy prosecutions. If the “same evidence” test was the sole standard for determining whether multiple conspiracies exist, then prosecutors could carefully draw two indictments by choosing different sets of overt acts and make one conspiracy appear to be two. Thomas, 759 F.2d at 662; United States v. Bendis, 681 F.2d 561, 564-65 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 973, 103 S.Ct. 306, 74 L.Ed.2d 286 (1982). Simply limiting our inquiry in the instant case to a comparison of the two indictments would quickly lead to a finding of separate conspiracies. Of the fifty-two overt acts alleged in indictment number 166 and the forty-three acts listed in number 165, only two acts are common to both indictments. Our inquiry is not so limited, but extends beyond a facial comparison of the indictments provided by the “same evidence” test.
Many courts have recognized that in conspiracy cases involving double jeopardy claims a “totality of the circumstances” or “full study of the indictments and evidence” test provides a more accurate analysis than the “same evidence” test. Thomas, 759 F.2d at 662; United States v. Arbelaez, 719 F.2d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1255, 104 S.Ct. 3543, 82 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984); see Lurz, 666 F.2d at 74 (recognizing validity of “totality of the circumstances” approach). In developing this test, courts have identified five factors to consider in evaluating double jeopardy claims: 1) time periods in which the alleged activities of the conspiracy occurred; 2) the statutory offenses charged in the indictments; 3) the places where the alleged activities occurred; 4) the persons acting as co-conspirators; and 5) the overt acts or any other descriptions of the offenses charged which indicate the nature and scope of the activities to be prosecuted. Thomas, 759 F.2d at 662; Sinito, 723 F.2d at 1256. We agree that the five-factor “totality of the circumstances” test is a correct approach. In our view, however, a flexible application of the test rather than rigid adherence is a more useful policy in making the ultimate determination. See Lurz, 666 F.2d at 74-75 (recognizing totality of the circumstances test, but not undertaking complete five-part analysis, where finding of separate conspiracies sufficiently supported by differences in geographic locations and personnel involved).
Here, we must determine whether the separate organizations perpetrated separate conspiracies or whether the organizations — despite their distinct internal structures — formed a single conspiracy. We conclude that the conspiracies charged in indictment 165 and in indictment 166 are separate conspiracies, and thus, appellants’ prosecution in this case was not barred by the double jeopardy clause.
Before applying the five-factor test to the facts of this case, we briefly review the district court’s disposition of the double jeopardy claims. The district court determined that the Riley-Harvey and the Rhoad-Foy organizations were engaged in separate conspiracies. It reasoned, therefore, that the prosecution of MacDougall, Gunn and Sanders in indictment number 165 charging the Rhoad-Foy conspiracies did not bar their prosecution for activities as members of the Riley-Harvey organization. In reaching its decision, the district court rejected the appellants’ contention that the two organizations were part of one major smuggling and distribution conspiracy. In Lurz, this court, applying the “clearly erroneous” standard, upheld a district court’s determination of the existence of two independent conspiracies. 666 F.2d at 74. The district court in Lurz gave careful and repeated consideration at two pretrial hearings and at the end of government’s case to the question of whether there were one or two conspiracies. The district court allowed the defendant to develop the record and to present arguments for his position. Id. Similarly, the district court, in the instant case, provided the appellants hearings on the double jeopardy issue before and during the trial and allowed them full opportunity to develop the record and present arguments for their position.
Applying the totality of the circumstances test in the flexible manner which we think is appropriate, we are persuaded that two factors are most significant in this appeal: the identity of the persons acting as co-conspirators and the relationship between the activities of the conspiracies charged in the several indictments. The final versions of indictments 166 and 165 charged eight of the same defendants, out of a total of twenty-three named in 166 and twenty-four named in 165. At one time or another, from the original indictments up to the second superceding indictment in 166, twelve defendants were named in both 165 and 166, including Gunn, Sanders and MacDougall. In indictment 151, the major Eastern District of Virginia prosecution of the Pernell-Toombs organization, which also charged Leon Harvey with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, the government submitted a list of over 120 unindicted participants, including eleven individuals indicted in either 165 or 166. That list included Gunn, MacDougall, Michael Harvey, Leslie Riley and Barry Foy. The suggested link between the 151 conspiracy and the 166 conspiracy, however, was undercut by testimony at trial in the instant case of the vast number of ventures undertaken independently by each organization and by testimony that the four appellants were not members of Pernell’s organization. Finally, we note that neither MacDougall, Gunn nor Sanders was placed in jeopardy by the Eastern District of Virginia prosecution.
In view of the enormity of the conspiracies involved and the size of the individual ventures, we are not persuaded that the level of overlap of defendants indicates the existence of a single conspiracy. There is no rigid formula for determining at what level of overlap two conspiracies become one. Rather, the issue is whether the evidence of overlapping personnel establishes a single conspiratorial scheme. We find that here it does not. See United States v. DeFillipo, 590 F.2d 1228, 1234 n. 7 (2d Cir.) (no double jeopardy violation where one indictment named seven persons, the other six, and four overlapped), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 920, 99 S.Ct. 2844, 61 L.Ed.2d 288 (1979); United States v. Booth, 673 F.2d 27, 29 (1st Cir.) (substantially different personnel where ten defendants were common to indictments alleging twenty-four and nineteen defendants, respectively), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 978, 102 S.Ct. 2245, 72 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
The most complex of the factors in our analysis is the significance of the extensive joint ventures involving the three organizations — in other words, whether the individuals were working together to further one conspiracy or multiple conspiracies. An obvious pattern of mutual cooperation continued throughout most of the period in which the Riley-Harvey and Rhoad-Foy organizations were active. In addition, the Riley-Harvey organization cooperated in many ventures with the Pernell-Toombs organization. Clearly, the Rhoad-Foy and the Riley-Harvey organizations participated in at least three joint ventures: 1) the importation of 9,500 pounds of marijuana in September 1978 involving the vessel “Straightaway,” 2) the hashish operation in June 1980 involving the vessel “Second Life,” and 3) the final drug smuggling venture ending in late 1981. Riley also participated with the Rhoad-Foy organization in the Coconut Grove, Florida expedition in 1974, which, of course, occurred prior to the establishment of the Riley-Harvey organization.
The appellants, however, assert that the overlap between the Riley-Harvey and Rhoad-Foy operations extended beyond the four ventures described above, and that a number of other ventures were in fact joint ventures. Their theory is that the degree of overlap and the number of joint ventures link the two organizations into one conspiracy, and thus, having been tried once for their involvement in the conspiracy, they cannot be tried again on charges resulting from the same conspiracy. The record, however, does not support their contentions. For example, appellants assert a link between the Riley-Harvey organization and a November 1979 venture of the Rhoad-Foy and the Pernell-Toombs organizations involving the importation of approximately 8,000 pounds of marijuana from Samana Cay into the United States at Edisto Island, South Carolina. The evidence cited by appellants to link this venture to Riley-Harvey was the grand jury testimony of Stephen Ravenal, one of the unindicted co-conspirators in the Eastern District of Virginia prosecution, that Leon Harvey was involved in the preparation of the venture. Ravenal, however, subsequently testified before the grand jury that Harvey may not have been involved in the venture.
The appellants also attempt to link another Riley-Harvey venture, the importation of 10,000 pounds of marijuana onboard the vessel “Omega” in late summer or early fall of 1980, to the Rhoad-Foy organization because Pinckney Greene, a member of the Rhoad-Foy organization, had supplied the vessel. Warren Steele, charged with engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise in indictment 166 with Riley and Harvey, testified, however, that Greene approached him about using the “Omega” and that Greene “had had prior dealings with, I think Barry Foy and Tom Rhoad, and he didn’t seem to be happy working there.” This testimony suggests, if anything, the independent nature of the two conspiracies. The other evidentiary links which the appellants offer are similarly weak. In an August 1980 venture in which the Rhoad-Foy organization imported approximately 18,-000 pounds of marijuana into South Carolina, Riley referred a crew member, John Jamison, to Foy for work on the vessel. Similarly, Rhoad’s former girlfriend was quoted in an FBI report as having told the FBI that Rhoad invested money in a Riley-Harvey venture involving the vessel “LaCativa” in January 1981. Even if one or two of these apparently separate ventures were, in fact, joint ventures, the far greater number of independent ventures undertaken by each of the three organizations supports the finding of separate conspiracies.
At trial of the instant case, Pemell, a lead defendant in indictment 151 in the Eastern District of Virginia, testified that his organization had undertaken approximately fifty-two smuggling operations, of which forty-five were successful, and that he had done joint ventures with other groups including seven or eight with the Rhoad-Foy

Question: What is the nature of the second listed respondent whose detailed code is not identical to the code for the first listed respondent?
A. private business (including criminal enterprises)
B. private organization or association
C. federal government (including DC)
D. sub-state government (e.g., county, local, special district)
E. state government (includes territories & commonwealths)
F. government - level not ascertained
G. natural person (excludes persons named in their official capacity or who appear because of a role in a private organization)
H. miscellaneous
I. not ascertained
Answer:

Answer: I