for abuse of discretion, United States v. Locascio, 6 F.3d 924, 931 (2d Cir.1993), and we find none here. See United States ex rel. Stewart v. Kelly, 870 F.2d 854, 857 (2d Cir.1989) (no abuse of discretion where a district court disqualified counsel from representing a client where “[t]here was no guarantee that [the client’s] interests could be served without vigorous cross-examination of [a former client of that attorney] in a manner wholly inconsistent with the [former client’s] interests”). DiPietro also argues that one of his two convictions for possession of a firearm in furtherance of an extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), must be vacated, because the two were based on a single unit of prosecution. See United States v. Wallace, 447 F.3d 184, 187-88 (2d Cir.2006) (<HOLDING>). But the underlying offenses here formed two
holding that the prosecution cannot divide a single crime into multiple units to avoid double jeopardy holding that convictions sustained subsequent to the conduct forming the basis for the offense at issue cannot be used to enhance a defendants status to career offender holding that multiple sentences for offenses under 18 usc  924c are appropriate when multiple separate acts of firearm use have occurred even if they are related to the same underlying offense holding that because plaintiffs claims were presented as a single claim based on the same facts and based on the same alleged damages multiple awards would be duplicative holding that multiple convictions under  924c cannot be based on offenses forming a single unit of prosecution