activities in the

other state, nor was the success of the conspiracy in one state

contingent on the success of the conspiracy in the other.      To the



                                21
contrary, what the record reveals of the economics of the

kickback schemes strongly suggests that Wells had no motive to

commit himself to anything beyond the receipt of his commissions

and that the same is true for D'Andrea and LaPorta and their

consulting fees.   From the lack of mutual awareness and

interdependence, economic or otherwise, we can only conclude that

each group of conspirators had an interest in and were committed

only22
          If Smith had perceived the opportunity to defraud GTECH

through the submission of fraudulent invoices from service

providers, and acting alone like Brown in Kotteakos, had

independently recruited service providers in several states to

submit such invoices, arranged for the payment of the invoices by

GTECH, and received kickbacks from the service providers in each

state, he and the service providers in each state, like Brown and

each of the loan applicants, would have been members of separate

conspiracies.   Under the principles discussed in Kotteakos and

applied in subsequent decisions,4 the service providers in each

state, assuming that they lacked commitment to the success of

Smith's overall, interstate scheme to defraud, would have been

members of distinct conspiracies, and Smith could have been

prosecuted separately for each.

IMC were aware