174 F.3d at 748. Connie argues, however, that jeopardy attached in her case because George had already been tried at the time the indictment against her had been dismissed. Connie’s argument is misplaced, as she cannot assert George’s jeopardy rights. Connie’s trial had been severed from George’s and had not yet begun when the original indictment was dismissed and the superseding indictment filed. Accordingly, jeopardy did not attach to the charges against Connie. Finally, Connie asserts that the illegality of the original indictment somehow ert. denied, 527 U.S. 1024, 119 S.Ct. 2371, 144 L.Ed.2d 775 (1999). On appeal, George concedes that the panel decision in Singleton has been overruled and acknowledges this court’s decision in United States v. Ware, 161 F.3d 414, 419 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1045, 119 S.Ct. 1348,
holding that the fact that a prosecutor afforded favorable treatment to a government witness standing alone does not establish the existence of an underlying promise of leniency in exchange for testimony holding that the contracts clause article i section 10 clause 1 to the united states constitution does not apply to the actions of the federal government holding that title ii does not apply to the states holding that sovereign immunity does not bar extinguishment of united states junior lien in proceeding in which united states was not a party holding that  201c which penalizes an individual for giving anything of value in exchange for testimony does not apply to the united states government