Anagal

MEMORANDUM **

On August 19, 2004, Anagal moved to withdraw his first two motions to sever, so they are not before us. The motion to sever that Anagal argues should have been granted was filed in March 2004, and sought to sever “Counts 1 & 3 from Counts 2 & 4 for trial.” This motion was based on both Rule 8(a) and Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The district court denied it December 1, 2004. Trial was not until nine months *111 later, starting September 7, 2005. Anagal did not renew this motion to sever.

Even if Anagal’s March 2004 motion to sever was not waived for failure to renew it, see United States v. Terry, 911 F.2d 272, 277 (9th Cir.1990), the district court did not err by denying it. The offenses would require presentation of overlapping evidence about the same two-day crime spree on February 7 and 8, 2003. See United States v. Jawara, 474 F.3d 565, 574 (9th Cir.2007); Terry, 911 F.2d at 276 .

The distinct court did not violate Anagal’s right to confront one of his two victims. Anagal’s proffer did not establish that her prior accusation was false. We held in Hughes v. Raines, 641 F.2d 790 (9th Cir.1981), that the right to confrontation was not…