Because the defendant had participated in two distinct conspiracies, the second conspiracy indictment did not violate the guarantee against double jeopardy. The defendant had been charged in two separate proceedings, each charging him with conspiracy to import ecstasy and conspiracy to possess ecstasy for sale. As to the second proceeding, he entered a plea of once in jeopardy. While acknowledging that the double jeopardy clause prohibits the government from splitting a single conspiracy into separate charges and bringing successive prosecutions against a defendant, the court applied the five-part test from Arnold v. United States (9th Cir. 1964) 336 F.2d 347, and concluded that under the circumstances, the offenses were sufficiently separate to permit separate prosecutions.