retaliate against a witness and retaliation against a witness— as his codefendants. The charges stemmed from the same nucleus of facts, and the government proved each charge against each defendant through interrelated evidence. See United States v. Rodriguez-Aguirre, 108 F.3d 1228, 1234 (10th Cir.1997) (finding that the denial of defendant’s motion to sever was proper when the charges involved a common scheme and the evidence was “massive and interrelated”). Indeed, the evidence about which Mr. Wardell complains — evidence pertaining to the actual commission of the assault by Mr. Shields and Mr. Temple-man — would have been admissible against him in his own trial, as proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. See United States v. Cardall, 885 F.2d 656, 668 (10th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>). The district court also took steps to
holding regarding sixth amendment prejudice if there is no reasonable possibility that the appellate court would have ruled in his favor there can be no strickland prejudice holding that there was no prejudice when evidence complained of would have been admissible against defendant in separate trial holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding that the conviction should be upheld because there was no prejudice to the defendant even though the defendant had been charged with one conspiracy and the proof at trial showed two separate conspiracies holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for severance where the allegedly prejudicial evidence would have been admissible in separate trials