sentence of five years contained in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(B). The court denied defendant’s request for downward adjustments for acceptance of responsibility and for his allegedly minor role in the offense, and imposed the lowest possible sentence within the Guideline range recommended in the PSR- — 63 months. The judge made no finding or mention of the existence of a relevant connection between the two transactions for sentencing purposes. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION An indictment is impermissibly duplicitous where: 1) it combines two or more distinct crimes into one count in contravention of Fed.R.Crim.P. 8(a)’s requirement that there be “a separate count for each offense,” and 2) the defendant is prejudiced thereby. United States v. Murray, 618 F.2d 892, 896 (2d Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Margiotta, 646 F.2d 729, 733
holding that a mere failure to reveal hidden assets can invoke the doctrine even without any other act in the prepetition year recognizing the collateral order doctrine for the first time holding defendant must demonstrate prejudice in order to invoke duplicity doctrine because the doctrine is more than an exercise of mere formalism recognizing doctrine holding that jurisdiction must be resolved before applying the act of state doctrine because that doctrine is a substantive rule of law