in both Rhode Island and Kentucky.

           With respect to the chronological component of the

Liotard analysis, extensive temporal overlap is apparent from the

record:   the New Jersey conspiracy spanned March 1992 to March



                                14
1994, and the Kentucky conspiracy spanned April 1992 to February

1994.

          Also, we agree with Smith that the government's

evidence indicates he played a virtually identical role in the

activities that the government characterizes as two conspiracies.

In each instance, he used his influence as national sales manager

to procuretwo alleged conspiracies.    Smith correctly points out

that he and IMC and the other designated third parties in

Kentucky played a role in the activities alleged in both the

Kentucky indictment and the New Jersey indictment.    To this

extent, there is an overlap.   But Smith's argument, we believe,

misses a critical point.

          An overlap in membership is useful to a double jeopardy

analysis to the extent that it helps determine whether the

alleged conspirators in both indictments were committed to the

same objectives and consequently were members of a single

conspiracy.   When the same people are involved in the activities

which the government alleges to be undertaken in furtherance of

two different conspiracies, it will normally be possible to infer

that