MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MONTI L. BELOT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This case comes before the court on the following motions:
1) Defendant Jason Giesy’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 43) and the government’s response (Doc. 50);
2) Defendant’s motion in limine (Doc. 44) and the government’s response (Doc. 51); and
3) Defendant’s motion to sever (Doc. 45) and the government’s response (Doc. 53).
Defendant and co-defendant Jeremy Harris are charged in a superseding indictment with conspiracy to distribute marijuana (count 1), possession with intent to distribute marijuana (count 2), conspiracy to launder monetary instruments (count 3) and tampering with a witness (count 4). The superseding indictment also names two additional co-defendants. Co-defendant Amanda Harris is charged in count 5 with tampering with a witness. The last co-defendant, Evan Woolsey, is charged in count 6 with possession of a firearm during a drug trafficking crime.
A. Motion to Dismiss
Defendant moves to dismiss count 4 of the superceding indictment on the basis that the allegations fail to establish the charge. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c) requires an indictment be merely a "plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged." An indictment is held only to minimal constitutional standards, and the sufficiency of the indictment is determined "by practical rather than technical considerations." United States v. Dashney, 117 F.3d 1197, 1205 (10th Cir. 1997). "An indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense charged, putting the defendant on fair notice of the charge against which he must defend and if it enables a defendant to assert an acquittal or conviction in order to prevent being placed in jeopardy twice for the same offense." United States v. Poole, 929 F.2d 1476, 1479 (10th Cir. 1991).
Count 4 of the superceding indictment charges defendant with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). To establish the elements of the charge, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant (1) knowingly, (2) attempted to intimidate and/or threaten Officer Thode (3) with the intent to influence his testimony (4) at an official proceeding. United States v. Stroup, No. 07-8085, 2008 WL 2914964 (10th Cir. July 30, 2008). Defendant argues that there was no official proceeding and that defendant’s statements were not sufficient to constitute an attempt to intimidate. (Doc. 43 at 3). The court, however, does not consider the evidence at this stage of the proceedings. The allegations charged in the superceding indictment set forth the elements of section 1512(b)(1). Therefore, the indictment is sufficient. Poole, 929 F.2d at 1479.
B. Motion in Limine (Doc. 44)
Defendant moves for the exclusion of any evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or bad acts allegedly committed by defendant, co-defendants, or any alleged co-conspirator. The government objects on the basis that the motion fails to ...