With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); Manokey v. Waters, 390 F.3d 767, 771-73 (4th Cir.2004). We find that Defendants’ convictions for conspiracy to distribute heroin, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(b)(1)(C), 846, and conspiracy to defraud the United States or commit any offense against the United States (la, provide and possess contraband in prison), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, although both stemming from the same events, were not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. See Albernaz v. United States, 450 U.S. 333, 344 n. 3, 101 S.Ct. 1137, 67 L.Ed.2d 275 (1981) (recognizing that a single conspiracy “can give rise to distinct offenses under separate statutes without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause”); see also United States v. Holloway, 128 F.3d 1254, 1257-58 (8th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we conclude that the district

A: holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court
B: holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause
C: holding that convictions under  846 and 371 do not offend the double jeopardy clause
D: holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment
C.