jury would find him guilty by association. To show that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to sever, Perez must demonstrate prejudice from a joint trial (1) "to such an extent that the district court could not provide adequate protection” and (2) that outweighed the government's interest in judicial economy. United States v. Richards, 204 F.3d 177, 193 (5th Cir.2000). Perez has not demonstrated "clear, specific and compelling prejudice that resulted in an unfair trial,” United States v. Bullock, 71 F.3d 171, 174 (5th Cir.1995), because (1) the conspiracy alleged by the government was not complex, (2) the trial involved only four defendants, and (3) the district court instructed the jury to consider each defendant separately. Cf. Richards, 204 F.3d at 193-94 (<HOLDING>). 21 .Milan also argues that the jury's finding
holding that two conspiracies existed where the members of the second conspiracy did not know about the first conspiracy did not benefit from the first conspiracy and were connected with the first conspiracy only through a middleman holding that in a conspiracy case venue lies where the conspiracy agreement was formed or in any jurisdiction where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the conspirators holding that the notion of enterprise conspiracy has largely rendered the old distinction between single conspiracy and multiple conspiracy irrelevant to rico conspiracy charges holding that a joint conspiracy trial was proper based on the lack of complexity of the conspiracy the number of defendants and an appropriate jury instruction holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy