that, in the case of a potential counsel conflict of interest, the court should conduct an inquiry, akin to the plea colloquy under Rule 11, to determine whether the defendant wishes to waive the conflict. Id. at 278. Valid waivers must be not only voluntary, but also must be “knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” Id. at 276 (quotation omitted). Accordingly, a defendant may waive an actual conflict of interest provided the waiver is “knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” United States v. Ross, 33 F.3d 1507, 1524 (11th Cir.1994). However, a district court’s failure to comply with Garcia will not require reversal absent an actual conflict of interest. United States v. Mers, 701 F.2d 1321, 1326 (11th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). “Although joint representation of multiple
holding exclusion was harmless error holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error holding that the district courts error in calculating the amount of drugs at issue was harmless because the error had no impact on the defendants sentence holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless holding that a district courts violation of garcia and federal rule of criminal procedure 44c was harmless error because there was no actual conflict