when the offenses charged overlap so completely that one is a lesser included offense of the other, and the defendant cannot properly be sentenced for all offenses charged, see Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977) (per curiam) (“the Double Jeopardy Clause bars prosecution for the lesser crime after conviction for the greater one”), the analysis is the same. The defendant is entitled to a trial by jury only if any one of the offenses carries a maximum authorized sentence of more than six months. Only when one charge is elevated in seriousness by the existence of the other, such as under a recidivism statute, would multiple charging cause the elevation of the seriousness of a single offense. See United States v. Raynor, 939 F.2d 191, 194 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). And in those cases, the statutorily enhanced
holding that sixth amendment not violated when sentence enhanced based on prior convictions that were not charged in indictment or admitted by defendant holding that a sentence may be enhanced based on a prior conviction that was not alleged in the indictment admitted on the record or proved beyond a reasonable doubt holding that evidence of an eighteenyearold conviction was admissible to show intent because that conviction involved exactly the same crime as was charged in the indictment holding that conviction on second firearms offense even though charged in the same indictment as the first gives rise to enhanced sentence under 18 usc  924c1 holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense