In this case, the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines required sentencing courts to consider relevant conduct when computing a sentence within a particular range. The Court held that a defendant could be convicted and sentenced for an offense that a sentencing court had considered as relevant conduct in a previous sentencing. This note concludes that the Court's majority correctly ruled that subsequent conviction of "relevant conduct" does not result in double punishment for the same crimes under the double jeopardy clause. First, this note contends that the Sentencing Guidelines require the same double jeopardy analysis as the one used traditionally. Second, the note argues that the majority's decision was consistent with congressional intent regarding "relevant conduct" and multiple convictions. Finally, the note rejects Justice Stevens' dissenting argument that the distinction between the character of the defendant and the character of the offense barred a second sentence for actions considered as "relevant conduct" for a previous offense. 315 footnotes