that while the object of the West Virginia conspiracy had been to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute, the Pennsylvania indictment charged that the objects of that conspiracy were to smuggle, store, and distribute marijuana. Consequently, “[tjhese were two different objectives” and “hence two conspiracies.” 892 F.2d at 268. Likewise, the substantive objectives of the two conspiracies here are distinct and reveal two agreements. Redball I alleged a conspiracy involving a street-level operation in St. Thomas distributing cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana, while Redball II alleged a conspiracy to import cocaine from the British Virgin Islands for subsequent distribution in the continental United States. See also United States v. Chiattello, 804 F.2d 415 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, Mark has not made the requisite
holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman holding that  1962d does not violate the principle prohibiting conviction of multiple conspiracies under an indictment charging a single conspiracy holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense holding that the conviction should be affirmed despite the existence of two conspiracies where the indictment charged only one because this variance did not prejudice the defendant holding that two conspiracies existed where the first indictment was for a conspiracy to buy marijuana in mississippi and the second indictment involved a scheme to smuggle marijuana from colombia and distribute it in indiana