choice. We further hold that, by waiving their right to conflict-free representation, the defendants have waived their right to later assert a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel as caused by the conflict of interest. Accordingly, we make the rule absolute and direct the district court to vacate its August 22, 1994 order. ERICKSON, J., dissents, and LOHR and MULLARKEY, JJ., join in the dissent. 1 . In United States v. Rodriguez, 9 042, 1049 (4th Cir.1992) (finding that the defendant did not validly waive her right to conflict-free representation when the defendant waived her right at the arraignment and was unaware of the serious nature of the conflict of interest that later developed at sentencing); United States v. Martin, 965 F.2d 839, 843-44 (10th Cir.1992) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>); Hamilton v. Ford, 969 F.2d 1006, 1010 n. 4
holding that there was a valid waiver of defendants right to conflictfree representation despite the courts failure to inform the defendant of the existence of a potential conflict of interest since the defendant was well aware of the factual basis which created the conflict holding a defendant could waive any conflict based on his attorneys previous representation of a states witness in an unrelated matter holding that the defendant validly waived right to conflictfree representation where the defendant knew a conflict existed its effect on his defense and his right to have other counsel appointed holding that the defendant was deprived of his sixth amendment right to counsel where appointed counsels representation presented a conflict of interest holding that the defendant did not validly waive his right to conflictfree representation where the district court inadequately advised the defendant of the risks of multiple representation