Dennis

MEMORANDUM *

Jeffrey Dennis and Darren Hunter appeal various aspects of their convictions relating to two bank robberies that they committed in 1998. 1 The parties are familiar with the facts, which will not be repeated here. We affirm.

I. Dennis’ Appeals

Dennis’ contention that the district court erred in denying his motion to sever the trial of the two bank robberies is not reviewable on appeal, because he neither renewed the severance motion at the close of evidence, nor otherwise diligently pursued the motion. See United States v. Piache, 913 F.2d 1375, 1378 (9th Cir.1990).

There was sufficient evidence to convict Dennis of knowingly using a firearm during the first bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c). Dennis had conspired to rob the bank with Hunter, and Dennis was therefore vicariously liable for any of Hunter’s reasonably foreseeable acts carried out in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 646-48 , 66 S.Ct. 1180 , 90 L.Ed. 1489 (1946). As the robbery here was a “takeover” robbery, it was reasonably foreseeable that Hunter would use a gun, because takeover robberies generally “require some credible threat of deadly…