the Court to..conclude that “conspiracy as defined in § 846 does not define a different offense from the CCE offense defined in § 848.” Id, The Court also noted that the CCE crime “is the more serious of the two, and ... only one. of its elements is necessary to prove a § 846 conspiracy,” Id, Accordingly, the Court held' that a conspiracy to violate § 846 is a lesser-included offense of a factually coterminous § 848 enterprise crime and remanded with instructions to vacate the lesser conviction and its concurrent sentence. Id. at 307, 116 S.Ct. 1241. Although Rutledge involved two drug, crimes found in Title 21, the Court’s reasoning plainly ápplies in the analogous context of a child-exploitation enterprise. See, e,g,, United States v. Wayerski, 624 F.3d 1342, 1350-51 (11th Cir. 2010) (<HOLDING>). Title 18 defines a child-exploitation
holding that where jury was instructed on both a greater offense and lesserincluded offense and the jury convicted on the lesserincluded offense the double jeopardy provision prohibited retrial on the greater offense holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges holding that conspiracy is lesserincluded offense of cce holding that under rutledge a childpornography conspiracy is a lesserincluded offense of a childexploitation enterprise under  2252ag holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder