the same act or transaction; or (3) part of a common scheme or plan. See United States v. Foutz, 540 F.2d 733, 736 (4th Cir.1976). Even if offenses are properly joined, however, severance is appropriate if the defendant establishes he would be prejudiced by the joinder. See Fed. R.Crim.P. 14(a). We conclude that the district court correctly denied Davis’s motion to sever Count Three of the indictment because both counts charged Davis with robbing bank funds in violation of the same statute, Davis was accused of using tools to cut his way into both robbed properties, he was accused of wearing a stocking cap during the commission of both crimes, and the crimes occurred within a short time span. See Foutz, 540 F.2d at 736; see also United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509, 514 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). We also conclude that Davis failed to meet
holding not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to deny an award of attorneys fees to the wife holding that it is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for severance when the offenses are identical or strikingly similar in the method of operation and occur over a short period of time holding it was not an abuse of discretion to deny funds holding that it was not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for reconsideration where the motion presented nothing new and merely rephrased allegations in the complaint