956, 959 (5th Cir.2000). Under this approach, we would conclude that jeopardy attached in this case as soon as Dye’s bank account funds were seized. We conclude that the purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause are best served by the latter rule. This case is analogous to those where a defendant is sentenced to both a fíne and imprisonment when the statute allows only a fine or imprisonment. In such cases, if the fine has been paid, the defendant has “fully performed, completed, and endured one of the alternative punishments which the law prescribed for that offence” and therefore the court’s “power to punish for that of-fence was at an end.” See Ex Parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 85 U.S. 163, 176, 21 L.Ed. 872 (1873); see also In re Bradley, 318 U.S. 50, 52, 63 S.Ct. 470, 87 L.Ed. 608 (1943) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, when the state of Wisconsin seized
holding that where the language of the statute required the imposition of both confinement of which a portion could not be suspended and a fine the court had the ability to impose a fine and then suspend it holding that when a fine is paid there is a full satisfaction of one of the alternative penalties of the law and that the fine cannot be reimbursed in order to punish the defendant instead with imprisonment holding that the failure to impose a mandatory fine requires that the matter be remanded for imposition of that fine recognizing that because a district courts determination of the appropriate fine involves factual issues including the defendants ability to pay the fine imposedthe district courts calculation of the fine is entitled to deference and can be reversed on appeal only for clear error holding that a state cannot imposte a fine as a sentence and then automatically convert it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full