and 4 points based on Soreide’s role as an organizer or leader. A. Conviction Soreide first argues that the district court improperly denied his motion to sever the conspiracy and fraud charges (counts 1-27) because the denial of severance deprived him of the right to testify on some charges, but not others. “[T]o establish that the joinder of charges kept him from testifying, [a defendant] must show that the charges were distinct in time, place, and evidence, that there was ‘important’ evidence that he might have offered on one set of charges but could not, and that he had a ‘strong need’ not to testify on the other counts.” United States v. Hersh, 297 F.3d 1233, 1243 n. 15 (11th Cir.2002) (citation omitted) (quoting United States v. Forrest, 623 F.2d 1107, 1115 (5th Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>)). Because Soreide has failed to set forth the
holding that severance is not mandatory simply because a defendant indicates that he wishes to testify on some counts but not on others holding that severance was not required when a defendant was charged with five counts of forcible rape two counts of felonious restraint three counts of kidnapping two counts of armed criminal action two counts of forcible sodomy one count of second degree assault one count of first degree robbery and one count of stealing holding that the statute is mandatory holding that issues underlying all counts were sufficiently intertwined that the separate appeal of the summary judgment counts would complicate the trial of the remaining counts holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify