requires the proof of an additional fact which the other statute does not. If not, then the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause will apply. For example, the Supreme Court has held that the crimes of receiving a firearm and possessing a firearm, although listed in different statutes, constitute the same crime for double jeopardy purposes. Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861-62, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985). Howev er, the court has also held that the commission of a substantive crime and conspiracy to commit that crime are different offenses for double jeopardy. United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378, 391-92, 112 5.Ct. 1377, 118 L.Ed.2d 25 (1992); Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 902 (6th Cir.2000). See also United States v. Avery, 128 F.3d 966, 971-72 (6th Cir.1997)(<HOLDING>). But see Garrett v. United States, 471 U.S.
holding that under the crimes code conspiracy and the completed substantive offense are separate crimes holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy holding that conviction of and punishment for both the underlying predicate offense and continuing criminal enterprise does not violate double jeopardy holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause