In Witte v. United States, 515 U.S. 389, 115 S. Ct. 2199, 132 L. Ed. 2d 351 (1995), the defendant moved to dismiss an indictment charging him with conspiring and attempting to import cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(1) and 963 on the ground that the cocaine involved in these offenses had been considered as "relevant conduct" at sentencing for a previous marijuana conviction, and therefore, the later prosecution was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that consideration of uncharged conduct for sentencing purposes is not a "conviction" for such conduct, and therefore, is not "punishment" under the Double Jeopardy Clause: We agree with the Court of Appeals, however, that petitioner's double jeopardy theory--that consideration of uncharged conduct in arriving at a sentence within the statutorily authorized punishment range constitutes "punishment" for that conduct--is not supported by our precedents, which make clear that a defendant in that situation is punished, for double jeopardy purposes, only for the offense of which the defendant is convicted. Witte, 515 U.S. at 397, 132 L. Ed. 2d at 362.