judgment. Finally, Garcia’s current disciplinary problems are by themselves insufficient to establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and Noe has failed to establish prejudice. See United States v. Watson, 479 F.3d 607, 611 (8th Cir.2007) (declining “to extend a per se ineffective assistance of counsel rule to cases where the defendant was represented by a trained and qualified attorney, albeit one with licensing problems” and requiring a showing a prejudice to establish a claim). Accordingly, Noe’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim fails under both the Cuyler standard and the Strickland standard. Noe’s argument that his constitutional right to effective assistance was violated by a possible conflict of interest also fails. See Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 350, 100 S.Ct. 1708 (<HOLDING>). 3. Waiver of Conflict of Interest Even if
recognizing possible conflict between the cases holding the existence of a possible conflict required remand for a determination of whether an actual conflict of interest existed and holding a new trial would be required if an actual conflict existed recognizing conflict holding that the lower court had inappropriately granted relief based on the existence of a possible conflict and explaining an actual conflict is required recognizing the conflict