U.S. at 338, 101 S.Ct. at 1142; Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 389, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 1283, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405 (1958). In this case, the bribery charge (18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(2)(A)) and the obstruction of justice charge (18 U.S.C. § 1503) each require proof of facts that the other offense does not. Bribery does not require proof that Muhammad knew of a pending judicial proceeding or that he endeavored to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice, see 18 U.S.C. § 1503; and obstruction of justice does not require proof that Muhammad was a public official or that he demanded, sought, or agreed to receive a thing of value for himself in exchange for an official act performed by him, see 18 U.S.C. § 201. Cf. United States v. Langella, 776 F.2d 1078, 1082 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). Each count plainly requires proof of several
holding that drug type and quantity do not constitute formal elements of separate and distinct offenses under section 84ibl holding that leaving the scene and failing to render assistance are separate and distinct offenses holding that perjury and obstruction of justice are distinct offenses under the blockbwrger test recognizing the test for business nexus is distinct from transactional nexus and its test for dissociation holding that test for whether two offenses are not the same is whether each offense requires proof of a fact that the other does not