Does a ~\ren~counf Conviction under He. Same. S~kchk-
■ppir (X. S OLct~ of -P7/Vi^f cz>V)dL doe-U/neflt y/folohfL double
yZopardj clause- of tie Fifth A/nendmert praiechtiioS
a.qaibst wulh'ple prosecatbns and punishments -for the.
5 avne- offense ^

a. v\e.QokdteJi plea- that was attered by the tried
pro no unde men f Waive, a double, J<£e> purely
Ifrpfe CoaviebbnS fconx ex. Sin ale
Cn*m//IA| act (V) vfolahbfi "of tM- princes esfddished
bu *H>e fi,p4K Amendment oond $ lock iauryer y, tlm'fzd
3FV as. 5\P 5 ch I Bo, 1(* uid ad 3^> () 433) 7
VjaJ d^Urf^ post
CK- defendants
f- dL<3>uv>s<d ^/id. due* process
under the. Sixth ctnd fourteenth Avnendmenfs to the (J S'
Const tut'onf

3. Does

Court's
claim aQainSTQC£X
anou
)Q of intorrna-h'on (phases) in ^ c-nmi
the statute- of l/\r>itotiOnS'i violate

3, does thd -film
expiration of
ViKf ~h? effective <xssistffrfcen3
date, i/vrth t* Did the appellate court's issuance of
Motions "h'me7y ftkd violate, petitioners riqhi jo
fourteenth Amendment •
C-a, /nan
pending
due process proWfeJ tj +J>e7

Does a ten-count conviction under the same statute for a single act of filing one document violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment protections against multiple prosecutions and punishments for the same offense?