States, 445 U.S. 684, 691-92, 100 S.Ct. 1432, 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980); United States v. Johnson, 22 F.3d 106, 108 (6th Cir.1994). But when determining punishment for two distinct offenses, the court must recognize that there is a presumption that Congress intended to permit cumulative sentences. Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S. 773, 793-94, 105 S.Ct. 2407, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985)(emphasis added). The question of double jeopardy in punishment is frequently raised concerning civil and criminal penalties. Generally, the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against only multiple criminal punishments and does not include civil sanctions. Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93, 98-99, 118 S.Ct. 488, 139 L.Ed.2d 450 (1997); Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391, 399, 58 S.Ct. 630, 82 L.Ed. 917 (1938)(<HOLDING>); Cutshall v. Sundquist, 193 F.3d 466, 474 (6th
holding congress may impose civil and criminal sanctions with respect to the same act or omission holding the same with respect to an apartment holding that the district court committed reversible error by imposing criminal sanctions in a civil proceeding which did not afford the contemnor the procedural protections the constitution requires for the imposition of criminal contempt sanctions holding the same with respect to violations of the fifth amendment recognizing the federal courts ability to impose inherent power sanctions on parties