principles. 12 . John Buchanan also argues that his sentences under counts five and six were duplicitous of the firearm charges contained in counts three and four. This argument lacks merit. Counts three and four, applying 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), required only that the defendant use or carry a firearm during a drug-trafficking offense. Count five, alleging violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), required the possession of an automatic weapon; and count six, applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), required that the defendant not only possess a firearm, but that he also be a convicted felon. Thus counts five and six involve distinct elements not required by counts three and four. Under the test set forth in Blockburger v. United S 2d 603 (1994); United States v. Baird, 63 F.3d 1213, 1219 (3d Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). John Buchanan was thus not placed in jeopardy
holding in the administrative forfeiture context that jeopardy does not and cannot attach until one is made a party to a proceeding before a trier of fact having jurisdiction to try the question of guilt or innocence holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court holding that jeopardy does not attach in the administrative process preliminary to formal forfeiture proceedings even when the petitioner has filed a petition for remission or mitigation holding that jeopardy did not attach when the judge dismissed indictment because case was not put to fact finder and court did not make determination of guilt holding it is a question of fact