States, 432 U.S. 137, 155, 97 S.Ct. 2207, 53 L.Ed.2d 168 (1977); United States v. Hebeka, 89 F.3d 279, 282 (6th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 999, 117 S.Ct. 496, 136 L.Ed.2d 388 (1996). If this step is inconclusive then to determine whether a defendant has been subjected to successive prosecutions for the same offense, the court must apply the same elements test. Ball v. United States, 470 U.S. 856, 861, 105 S.Ct. 1668, 84 L.Ed.2d 740 (1985); Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Murr v. United States, 200 F.3d 895, 900 (6th Cir.2000); United States v. Forman, 180 F.3d 766, 768-69 (6th Cir.1999). The same elements test consists of examining the two statutes in question and determining whether each statut 105 S.Ct. 2407, 85 L.Ed.2d 764 (1985)(<HOLDING>). If violation of one of the statutes entails
holding that convictions for the crimes of conspiracy and continuing criminal enterprise violate double jeopardy holding that suspension of driving privileges is not punishment and does not violate an individuals right not to be subject to double jeopardy or constitute a disproportionate penalty holding that civil forfeitures are neither punishment nor criminal for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that conviction of and punishment for both the underlying predicate offense and continuing criminal enterprise does not violate double jeopardy holding that conviction did not violate double jeopardy where jury was empaneled and sworn in criminal trial before defendant filed answer to forfeiture complaint